The Thicket at State Legislatures

Report Confirms Online Influence on 2008 Election

by Gene Rose

The Pew Internet & American Life Project on Sunday released a new report, "The internet and the 2008 election," summarizing how voters in the United States are using online technologies in this election cycle. According to the report, the main findings are:

• 40% of all Americans (internet users and non-users alike) have gotten news and information about this year’s campaign via the internet.
• 19% of Americans go online once a week or more to do something related to the campaign, and 6% go online to engage politically on a daily basis.
• 23% of Americans say they receive emails urging them to support a candidate or discuss the campaign once a week or more.
• 10% of Americans use email to contribute to the political debate with a similar frequency.

Other notable findings:

• 35% of Americans have watched online campaign-related videos.
• 8% have donated to a candidate online.
• 60% agree with the statement: "The internet is full of misinformation and propaganda that too many voters believe is accurate."
• 74% disagree with the statement: "I would not be as involved in this campaign as much if it weren’t for the internet."

Here is Pew's summary of the report.

Academic Papers on State Politics and Policy

by Karl Kurtz

For the last eight years, the state politics and policy section of the American Political Science Association has convened a conference on politics at the state level.  This year's conference was entitled "Elections and Representative Democracy in the States". It was held in Philadelphia last week, and over 80 papers were presented.  I have never attended this event but have been told by many political scientists that it is the best academic conference for state politics and policy junkies. 

Most of these papers are available online and are listed here.  Some intriguing titles include "Legislative Regulation of the Initiative," "Candidate Emergence under Clean Elections: Does Public Funding in State Legislative Elections Encourage Citizens to Run for Office?," "Measuring Institutional Power in the American States," and "Uncontested Elections and Legislator Performance, Quality and Effectiveness."

Rare State Legislative Primary Defeat for Incumbent in California

by Karl Kurtz

Yesterday was state primary election day in California.  In a highly unusual event (the last time was 12 years ago), incumbent state Sen. Carole Migden was defeated in a Democratic primary in San Francisco by Assemblymember Mark Leno (photo).  In most term-limited states, and especially California, quality challenges to incumbent legislators are rare because most ambitious challengers wait for term limits to open up a seat.  But Leno was termed out in the Assembly, and Migden's highly publicized campaign finance irregularites and personal foibles made her an inviting target, despite the fact that she had won elected offices for 18 years and served as chair of both the Assembly and Senate budget committees. 

Because the Senate seat has a heavy Democratic advantage in registration, Leno is likely to win this Senate seat in November.  See today's Sacramento Bee for a rundown on that race as well as the two property rights initiatives on the ballot.

In an aside, as the presidential race has turned out, imagine what the stakes would have been if California had not pushed its presidential primary up to super Tuesday and kept it with the state primary in June!

Fixing a Deficit in State Legislative Experience in the Presidency

by Karl Kurtz

In Governing's Ballot Box blog today, Alan Greenblatt notes that it is rare in modern political history that former state legislators become president and that Sen. Barack Obama's claiming of his party's nomination for the presidency means that "...now every state legislator in the country -- all 7.400 of them -- can, like U.S. senators, look in the mirror and see a potential president."

In January 2007 in The Thicket we noted that six of 19 declared candidates for president in the 2008 election were former state legislators.  How soon we forget Tancredo, Gravel, Vilsack, Thompson and Kucinich, leaving only Obama as a presidential candidate with state legislative credentials.  We have also written in "State Legislators who Became President" about how 22 of 43 (51 percent) presidents are former state or colonial legislators but that there have been only five since 1900.

This reminded me that in 1994 I had proposed a fundamental change in American government that would have had the sure-fire effect of producing presidents who had backgrounds in state government: requiring that all candidates for federal office have previous state legislative experience.  The piece was entitled "Reinventing Federalism" and was based on a hypothetical question that U.S. District Court Judge William L. Dwyer had asked both sides in a constitutional challenge to Washington state's limit on the terms of members of Congress: If states can make experience a disqualification for federal office (i.e. term limits), then could they impose an experience requirement as a qualification for office? 

I pounced on this idea and, tongue-mostly-in-cheek, urged that "State legislatures across the nation should immediately initiate state constitutional amendments requiring six years of state legislative service for anyone who runs for the U.S. House of Represenatives, Senate or president."  I spun this fantasy out into a number of variations that would strengthen American federalism by repairing damage done by the establishment of direct election of senators in the 17th Amendment. I concluded with the idea that the combination of term limits for members of Congress and experience requirements for federal office would mean that: "The best and the brightest state legislators would have someplace to go at the end of their terms, and Congress and the presidency would be replenished with experienced and committed practitioners of federalism."

Had the states taken me up on my proposal, then neither John McCain nor Hillary Clinton would have been eligible for the 2008 nomination for president.  That's not a knock on them; it's only a daydream of a state legislative junkie.

What Happened at NCSL's Spring Forum?

By Meagan Dorsch and Michelle Blackston

How can states address their educational capacity for training nurses? What effects do immigration raids have on families and how can child welfare agencies be prepared? Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case from North Carolina during its next term that could dramatically change the rules for 2010 redistricting for all states.

These are just some of the sessions held last month at NCSL's Spring Forum in Washington, D.C. This year, more than 600 state legislators and legislative staff were able to attend. 

Listen and enjoy over 12 different sessions highlighting federal and state policy issues ranging from health care and REAL ID to the 2008 Elections.

2008 Exclusive Election Preview

by Gene Rose & Tim Storey

The 2008 presidential election “may mark a shift” in how America chooses its presidents, according to one of the country’s most respected political analysts.

John Harwood, CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent and a political writer for The New York Times, this morning spoke at NCSL’s “Legislative Leadership: The Art, The Politics, The Challenge,” taking place at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C. He is the co-author of  a soon-to-be-released book Profiles in Backroom Power, which shows “how today’s Washington power game really works, through stories of people who are making a difference on Pennsylvania Avenue.”

State legislative leaders got an exclusive preview of Harwood’s book, which he will be promoting over the next few days on Meet the Press, Charlie Rose and the Daily Show.

Harwood pointed out that when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, there were about 200 U.S. House districts that split their vote between a Republican president and a Democrat running for Congress. By George W. Bush’s run for reelection in 2004, that number was reduced to 50, politically polarizing the country.

“The electoral map is going to change,” he says, since the 2008 election pits a conservative vs. a liberal. “I think we are going to see an election that is going to be fought much more in the middle” than in previous elections. “Either one of these guys can break the gridlock that we have seen.”

Part of that will be seen on the campaign trail, since he does not see either candidate running a “slashing” campaign. Harwood says the general election will be as interesting as the primaries have been.

John McCain, who was considered politically dead at one point in the primaries, will run a much different campaign than Bush did, Harwood says. His reputation as a maverick is going to have appeal to some voters like those in New Hampshire where McCain is polling well. On the other hand, Barack Obama is going to have a greater capacity to compete in states like Colorado and Virginia. However, “The race problem that he will have might be greater than we have anticipated,” he says. McCain will face concerns about his age, he adds.

Republicans face the greater challenge in the fall, he says. “It’s a terrible environment” for the GOP, he says. While Obama will begin the general election with some damage with his fight with Hillary Clinton, Harwood says polling shows the American people feel  “lousy” about the economy and the Iraq war.  Many strategists feel that Republicans need the president to raise his popularity rating from the low thirties into the forties, he says.

Harwood says a choice of a running mate will be an important decision for the candidates. He says potential running mates for McCain include Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Possible Obama running mates are Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, Delaware Senator Joe Biden and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. “But the name I hear the most” is former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, he says.

Harwood says he was pleased to be speaking to a group of legislative leaders. “I think state legislative sessions are the most fun journalistic event that I know of,” he says. Harwood covered the Florida legislature in Tallahassee in the 1980s. Legislatures are “a place to see democracy in action.”

They had State Legislative Primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, too

by Karl Kurtz

Before the Indiana primary election on Tuesday, there were complaints that news about the hotly contested Democratic primary race for governor (narrowly won by U.S. Rep. Jill Long Thompson) was swallowed up by the hoopla over the Clinton-Obama battle.  Imagine trying to find out what happened in the state legislative primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina held on the same day as the presidential primaries. 

After two days of searching I found a report in the blog, taking down words, that Rep. John Ulmer (R) was the only incumbent legislator who lost in Indiana.  [May 9 update: Rep. Greg Simms was also defeated in the primary.]  Four Republican senators (including NCSL stalwart Beverly Gard) who had unusual primary challenges based on their roles in property tax legislation won easily.

In North Carolina four incumbent House members were defeated: Democrats Mary McAllister and Drew Saunders and Republicans Joe Boylan and Karen Ray.

Footnote to the Indiana election: we wrote last week about the Supreme Court decision in which three of the six judges in the majority said that the reason they voted not to overturn Indiana's voter photo ID law was that there was no evidence that anyone had been denied the right to vote by not having a valid ID.  Yesterday, the AP reported that 12 nuns, all in their 80's and 90's, some with expired passports and none of whom drive, were turned away from the election boot for lack of a valid photo ID. Would a case like that change the Court's decision?

Plaintiffs Fail to Overturn Indiana Photo ID for Voters Law

by Tim Storey

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Indiana in a case in which plaintiffs sought to overturn Indiana's requirement that all voters produce a valid photo identification.  In Crawford vs, Marion County Election Board the 6-3 majority consisted of three justices who said that the statute should be upheld, and three who said that this case did not produce enough evidence to overturn the law but that a future challenge was not out of the question.  The three justices in the minority said that the statute should be overturned.

Did the Court uphold the Indiana law?  Well, not exactly.  Given the mixed makeup of the majority opinion, the best we can say is that it was not overturned. 

There are three states (Georgia, Indiana and Michigan) that require a photo ID before a voter is allowed to vote or have their vote counted.  There are five other states that request a photo ID but will accept an alternate ID if the voter does not have one with a photo.  There are about 20 more states that require that voters produce some form of ID (with or without a photo).  For a complete rundown of voter ID requirements, go to this table on NCSL's website. 

More than 20 states considered bills on voter photo ID this year, and almost all of those bills are dead.  It is very unlikely that a state will enact a photo ID law before this year's fall election with the possible exception of Kansas, where a conference committee is considering two different versions of photo ID bills that passed each chamber.  The Supreme Court opinion will certainly lead to enhanced scrutiny of the photo ID requirement in this fall's elections.

In the nearly eight years since the election meltdown in Florida in 2000, perhaps no issue has gotten more attention in the election reform discussion than voter ID.  This seems ironic given that voter ID played almost no role in the Florida controversy, but that's how these things unfold.

State Legislators as Superdelegates

by Bakur Kvaratskhelia and Karl Kurtz

Of the 793 superdelegates for the Democratic party, how many are state legislators?  Surprisingly few.  Only 35 (4.4%) state legislators are serving as superdelegates.  Most of them are also members of the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.  A few are leaders of special caucuses or associations related to the Democratic party.

Of the 35, 14 have committed to Sen. Obama, 11 to Sen. Clinton and 10 are undecided.  This is slightly different from the national count that shows Clinton ahead of Obama, 246-216, with 331 undeclared, but given the very small number of legislators in the group it's difficult to attach any significance to the variation.  All five Illinois legislator superdelegates have endorsed Obama, and the three New Yorkers are all supporting Clinton. 

This question turned out to be harder to answer than we anticipated, because the state legislative affiliation of the superdelegates is not clear on any of the lists.  We had to look up the names of all superdelegates who are not members of Congress or governors.

Once final lists of all delegates to both the Democratic and Republican conventions are available sometime this summer, we'll try to identify all of the state legislators on these lists as well.

For a list of the superdelegates who are legislators, listed by state, read below the jump.

Update on Expulsions from State Legislatures

by Karl Kurtz

Earlier this month we reported on the expulsion of a North Carolina lawmaker from that state's legislature.  In that post we said that seven other legislators had been expelled from different legislatures since 1970.  That number should have been 15, as indicated by this more up to date list--Download expulsion_2.DOC--compiled by Brenda Erickson.  Brenda's list includes 19 other expulsions before 1970, going back as far as 1757. 

See also an ongoing story about an expulsion procedure under way in Arkansas in which the loser of a 2006 Senate race is claiming fraud in the election process and demanding that the winner be expelled from the Senate.

Section 5

by Tim Storey

If you are a legislator in a state where all or part of the state is covered by section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, the title of this post needs no explanation.  For everyone else, section 5 is a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires 16 states to gain approval from the federal government (either the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal district court in Washington, D.C.) any time the state passes a law that deals with voters or elections.  That includes any redistricting plan.  So when a legislature passes, and a governor signs, a law related to elections in a state covered by section 5, it cannot take effect until the federal government approves it--a process known as pre-clearance.  All or part of 16 states are covered by section 5.  It was an extraordinary remedy written into federal law to address a long history of insidious discrimination against minority voters. 

In 2007, a large bipartisan majority of Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Shortly after the reauthorization, the Northwest Austin (Texas) Municipal Utility District Number One (NAMUDNO) filed a direct challenge to the continued enforcement of section 5 before a three judge panel of the federal district court in Washington, D.C..  The DC court heard the case last October and a decision is expected any time. 

Most legal scholars and observers believe that regardless of the district court decision the NAMUDNO case will be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a high court decision on the constitutionality of section 5.  California Institute of Technology history professor J. Morgan Kousser has authored a lengthy law review article outlining the history of section 5 and discussing the NAMUDNO case.  Legislators and staff in section 5 states as well as others interested in the convergence of redistricting and the Voting Rights Act may want to read Kousser's article in the March 2008 Texas Law Review.  The article offers a perspective for understanding this complex area of law that could be headed for serious upheaval.

2008 State Legislative Election Outlook

Lou Jacobson has an excellent piece today forecasting 2008 state legislative elections in his "Out There" column for stateline.org.  He rates each of the chambers as strong or likely Republican or strong or likely Democratic and puts nine in the tossup category.

Felons: Are You Guilty of Moral Turpitude?

by Doug Farquhar

The New York Times had an interesting article, "In Alabama, a Fight to Regain Voting Rights Some Felons Never Lost," earlier this week about a curious quirk of the Alabama Constitution, which provides that only felons who have committed a "felony involving moral turpitude" are not eligible to vote.  A 2005 Alabama attorney-general's opinion says, "If...a person is convicted solely of a felony that does not involve moral turpitude, that person remains eligible to vote. If a person has been convicted of a felony that does not involve moral turpitude, that person remains eligible to vote…."  The story is about how this opinion is being used in Alabama today by activists who are trying to register such felons to vote.

Moral turpitude, as a legal concept, refers to conduct that would be immoral even if it were not illegal.  At the 1901 Constitutional Convention, the delegates felt that only felons who engaged in both illegal and immoral conduct should lose the right to vote.

The problem is that there is no definition of what kind of felony constitutes moral turpitude.  There appears to be general agreement, though, that a felony conviction for drug possession does not involve moral turpitude, meaning that the 3,000 current inmates convicted of felony drug charges should be eligible to vote.

According to The Sentencing Project, Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow incarcerated felons to vote.  Forty-seven other states ban them from voting.  Alabama appears to be in a unique category of allowing some prisoners to vote but not others.

The issue of voting rights for felons, which is more often couched in terms of restoring the franchise for felons who have served their time, often divides Democrats and Republicans.  In 2003 the Alabama Legislature passed a bill that made it easier for former felons to regain their voting rights.  The New York Times story quotes the chair of the Alabama Republican party as saying, “As frank as I can be, we’re opposed to it because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.”

Doug Farquhar covers agriculture and trade policy and is NCSL's liaison with the Alabama Legislature.  Photo of Old Kilby Prison Tower, Montgomery, Alabama, courtesy of Flickr by kenny42952.

Look for Candidates who Respect the Legislature

When we first began our campaign to improve public understanding of legislatures (the Trust for Representative Democracy), we discovered that what we were saying about state legislatures was almost word for word what former Congressman Lee Hamilton was saying at the Center on Congress at Indiana University.  All you had to do was to substitute our "state legislature" for his "Congress," and you had identical messages.  That was the basis on which we started a valuable partnership with the Center on Congress and, subsequently, together with the Center for Civic Education, formed the Alliance for Representative Democracy.

Just to prove the case that the messages are the same, I have taken one of Lee Hamilton's recent Comments on Congress (with apologies, thanks and admiration) and amended it to read as if it were written by a current or former state legislator.  Want to see if the argument works for your own state?  Just insert your state's name wherever you see the word "state."  You can find the original version of Hamilton's commentary without the deletions and additions here.

Look for Candidates who Respect the Congress State Legislature

by Lee Hamilton (as amended by Karl Kurtz)

You might not have noticed, given the media’s fascination with the presidential campaign, but there are 435 U.S. House contests and 35 U.S. Senate 5,579 state legislative races [a nationwide total--see a state-by-state list of 2008 legislative seats up for election] taking place this year. These are important elections, for even more reasons than you might be hearing about. Indeed, unless I miss my guess, the candidates and press in those many contests are barely talking about one of the most important issues we face: the role of Congress the state legislature itself.

The litany of matters worrying Americans and absorbing the attention of congressional state legislative candidates is, of course, long and complex: the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the challenges posed by Iran, the state of American public education, climate change, a long-term energy policy, immigration…. Not surprisingly, many voters want to hear how Congress the state legislature can protect them from financial ruin or how candidates propose to keep America our state strong. They’re less interested in how Congress the legislature functions.

Yet unless Congress the state legislature learns how to reassert its constitutional responsibility to be the President’s governor's equal in policy-making, the progress voters yearn to see on all those issues will be much harder to come by. This is why, as you listen to the various House and Senate candidates campaigning for your vote, I hope you’ll pay attention not only to what they say about the economy or Iraq education, but also to how they talk about Congress the state legislature itself.

State Legislative Primary Elections in Texas and Ohio

by Tim Storey

Ohio and Texas held legislative primaries yesterday, and it appears that there were relatively few surprises. 

Unofficial results show that a handful of incumbent Texas legislators lost in their effort to return.  Those included Democratic Representatives Kevin Bailey, Juan Escobar, Borris Miles, and Paul Moreno.  On the Republican side, incumbent Representatives Corbin Van Arsdale, Pat Haggerty and Thomas Latham all lost.  One race that saw about 30,000 total votes cast is likely headed to a recount.  Incumbent GOP Representative Nathan Macias trailed by 38 votes after initial vote tallies.

It does not appear that any sitting Texas Senators lost primary elections yesterday. 

The big question is whether these incumbent losses will affect the heated battle for Speaker of the Texas House.  The Austin American Statesman has a great wrap-up that seems to conclude that Speaker Craddick is positioned to retain his leadership post. 

And one Democratic Texas legislator earned the right to be an underdog this fall.  State Representative Rick Noriega won the Democratic primary and will challenge incumbent Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn.  The last time a Democrat won statewide in Texas was 1994. 

In Ohio, term limits fueled a wave of state legislators running for Congress, and several of them won primary bids on Tuesday.  In the Republican primary for U.S. House district 5, State Representative Bob Latta won big.  State Senator Steve Austria won the Republican primary in Congressional district 7 that is being vacated by retiring Congressman Dave Hobson.  In another open U.S. House seat, two legislators will face off in the fall to replace Ralph Regula (R).  Democratic State Senator John Boccieri will run against Republican State Senator Kirk Schuring for Ohio U.S. House district 16.

The next round of statewide legislative primaries are 47 days away on April 22nd in Pennsylvania. 

Update on New York Senate Special Election

by Karl Kurtz

The AP has an analysis, "Upstate race pivotal to Senate's future," of the New York Senate special election that we reported on yesterday.  And at Governing's new political blog, Ballot Box, Alan Greenblatt makes an appropriately tart comment about how the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee trumpeted the Democratic win in upstate New York primarily as a boon to the next round of redistricting.

Dems Win Special Elections in Florida, New York

by Karl Kurtz

Democrats won special elections for legislative seats previously held by Republicans in the Florida House of Representatives and the New York Senate yesterday.

The New York race, which was won by current Assemblyman Darrell Aubertine (D) over another Assemblyman Will Barclay (R),  was especially significant because it narrowed the Republican margin of control in the Senate to 32R-30D.  This leads to inside Albany speculation that Democrats, led by Gov. Spitzer, will try to convince at least one Republican to change parties and thereby switch control of the Senate.  Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has his own plan to protect Republican turf.

In the Florida House race, Democrat Tony Sasso defeated Republican Sean Campbell in a seat in parts of Brevard and Orange Counties that had been held by Rep. Bob Allen, who resigned last year after being convicted of soliciting sex from an undercover police officer.  It was the ninth special election picked up by Democrats in the House since the 2006 general election, but Republicans still control the House by a wide margin.

Both the Florida and New York districts had substantial Republican advantages in registration.

In the New York Times story about the upstate New York Senate race, I enjoyed this summary of comments by Bob Gorman, managing editor of the local Watertown Daily Times, who was upset at the involvement of pols from Albany and New York in the race and the negative campaigning that they brought with them:

...[T]he district, he said, has been home to three secretaries of state, the creator of the Dewey Decimal System, the founder of the Woolworth’s stores and the actors Kirk Douglas and Viggo Mortensen. And he said it has been unfairly characterized as an icy backwoods backwater.

“We have a higher degree of sophistication than the people in Albany and New York City have given us credit for,” Mr. Gorman said. He added that this election was hijacked by the Democratic and Republican machines in Albany and “Gotham,” and that the two parties have treated voters in the district “like rubes and country bumpkins rather than the geographic descendants of Remington, Dewey, Woolworth, Lansing, Dulles and Rogers,” whom he called “shapers of modern America.”

Maryland Senator Upsets 10-term Congressional Incumbent

by Tim Storey

State legislators continue to win primaries for congressional seats which is no huge surprise given that over half of members of congress are former legislators.  In Maryland's state primary yesterday, State Senator Andy Harris (right) upset U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest in the Republican primary for U.S. House district 1 representing Maryland's eastern shore and other parts of the state.  Harris won in the conservative district by challenging Gilchrest from the right and asserting that Harris was the true Reagan conservative.   

U.S. House Representative Albert Wynn, an 8-term incumbent and himself a former legislator, was outflanked to the left and upset in the Democratic primary for U.S. House district 4 by party activist Donna Edwards.  According to the Baltimore Sun, "she accused (Wynn) of being too moderate for his district."  Edwards is expected to win the Democratic district largely comprised of Prince George's county in the fall.   And Harris will be the favorite to win his GOP-leaning district. 

These two primary losses by moderate congressional incumbents from each party will surely fuel the simmering debate about redistricting being a main source of partisan polarization in Congress.  As the theory goes, when districts are heavily tilted toward one of the two parties, the only real race is in the primary.  And in the primaries, the more extremist candidates within the party have the advantage.  Those candidates tack heavily to the side to appeal to the party base to win the primary and then cruise to victory in the general election.   With fewer districts where the two parties have a reasonable shot to win in the general election, there are fewer women and men being sent to Congress who are inclined to compromise and moderate positions...thus hyper-partisanship runs amok.  There will always be hard-core conservative and liberal districts no matter how redistricting is done, but the question becomes whether there is enough balance to maintain some moderating voices in the first branch. 

But this is still just a theory, and the impact of redistricting on competitiveness and polarization remains unclear. For example, the U.S. Senate seems to be as polarized as the House, but of course, redistricting plays no part in how U.S. Senate districts are drawn--duh?  And as previously noted here in the Thicket by North Carolina legislative bill drafting guru Gerry Cohen, some studies suggest that redistricting is only a minor factor in how many "safe" and competitive districts there are. 

Let the Primaries Begin

by Tim Storey

"Begin???"  You may be scratching your head thinking that party primaries have been steaming along now for almost a month.  However, primaries for state legislative candidates are just beginning.  Yesterday, voters in Illinois were the first in this election cycle to cast ballots in state and congressional primaries.  I don't know this to be a fact, but I think the Illinois legislative primaries were probably the earliest ever held in the United States.   It appears that the state primaries produced no surprises with only one incumbent losing an intra-party race.  State Rep. Elga Jeffries finished 4th in the Democratic primary to run as an incumbent in her State House district 26.  She lost to former legislative staffer, and former Senator Obama aide, Will Burns. 

Two state legislators won primaries earning the right to challenge for open congressional districts in the fall.  Illinois Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson won the Democratic nomination to face Republican Tim Balderman in U.S. House district 11 that runs from south of Chicago through north-central Illinois and includes Joliet.  The seat is being vacated by Congressman Jerry Weller, himself a former Illinois legislator.

Illinois State Representative Aaron Schock won the GOP primary for congressional district 18 by a wide margin and will face a yet-to-be-determined Democratic opponent in the fall.  Representative Schock is barely eligible to run for Congress at the age of 26.  He would almost certainly be the youngest member of Congress if he gets elected in the central Illinois district that includes Peoria and part of Springfield.  The  district is currently represented by GOP Congressman Ray LaHood who also served briefly in the Illinois State House.  LaHood announced his retirement from the U.S. House last year.

One final note about Tuesday's elections.  There were three special elections to fill vacant seats in the Missouri House, and all three stayed in the hands of the party that previously held the seat (2R and 1D).  Early in 2006, Democrats managed to switch a number of legislative seats from Republican control in special elections auguring their victories in the fall.  We'll be keeping an eye on that trend, or non-trend, as the year progresses.

***** UPDATE *****

I forgot to check on the three legislative special elections in Kentucky held Tuesday.  The Thicket's preeminent author and founder Karl Kurtz called my attention to a party switch in the GOP direction.  In a special election to fill a vacancy in Kentucky Senate district 30, Republican  State Rep. Brandon Smith narrowly beat Democrat Scott Alexander by just over 400 votes giving Republicans a 22-15-1 advantage in the Bluegrass State Senate.  Kentucky Democrats won two State House seats up on Tuesday that had been vacated by Democrats.

California Ballot Measures Thwart Legislature on Term Limits, Support it on Tribal Gaming

by Jennie Bowser

Of the 24 states that held presidential primaries and caucuses yesterday, only California also had statewide measures on the ballot. California voters considered seven statewide ballot measures yesterday. Three were citizen initiatives on term limits, gas taxes and community colleges, and all three failed to pass. The remaining four were popular referenda on tribal gaming issues, and all four passed.

The most closely-watched measure in California was Proposition 93, an initiative proposing to modify California's legislative term limits. California was one of the first states to pass legislative term limits, and has some of the strictest limits in the nation. Legislators may serve up to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate, then are barred for life from further legislative service. Prop. 93 would have decreased the total years a legislator could serve from 14 to 12, but removed the chamber-specific limits, allowing a legislator the option to serve all 12 years in a single chamber.

Despite an aggressive campaign from proponents and the endorsement of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prop. 93 was defeated by a margin of 53-47. This is a closer margin than we've seen with previous attempts to modify legislative term limits. A 2000 initiative in California received just 40% of the vote, and legislative proposals in Arkansas (2004), Maine (2007) and Montana (2004) all polled in the low 30s. States that may consider modifications to term limits in November 2008 include Arkansas and Michigan. For more information on legislative term limits, visit NCSL's term limits page.

The four questions on California's ballot that passed were popular referenda dealing with tribal gaming compacts. The legislature passed amendments to the compacts with four different tribes, allowing for additional slot machines and exempting certain projects from the California Environmental Quality Act. The popular referenda were placed on the ballot via a petition process in an attempt to block the legislature's amendments. The "yes" votes on all four popular referenda mean that voters approve of the legislature's amendments, and they will now take effect. Yes, it's confusing, but in this case, a "yes" vote means that the backers of the popular referenda failed in their attempt to overturn the legislature's tribal gaming compact amendments.

Two other citizen initiatives on California's presidential primary ballot also failed to pass yesterday. Prop. 91 would have earmarked certain gasoline tax revenues for the transportation fund, and required repayment from the general fund of all such revenues deposited since 2003. Prop. 92 would have altered the governance and funding for the state's community colleges.

Garden State Absentee Voters Not Left Behind

by Gene Rose

New Jersey absentee voters have an unprecedented chance to find a new candidate.

A story in today's The Star-Ledger details how absentee voters who cast votes for presidential candidates no longer in the race can recast their votes. Most of the complaints, the article says, came from supporters of John Edwards and Rudi Giuiliani. Many voters were affected since this is the first year Garden State voters could vote under the state's "no-excuse" needed law.

Several attempts in recent years have been made to simplify voting procedures across the country, in an effort to increase voter participation. This case, though, raises the question on whether these types of early voting methods truly serve to make the process more open. And how far can this be taken? If a legislative candidate in a state with early voting were to withdraw during the week before an election, should early voters be able to demand a re-vote? While voters may overwhelmingly say yes, I venture to guess that those responsible for running state elections would have a different response.

Florida's Election Reform

by Meagan Dorsch

In 2000, the state of Florida gained a lot of notoriety during the presidential election.

Fast forward eight years and the Florida state legislature is putting its new election reform package into practice. This new package includes a paper trail for all ballots, election audits and new ways to manage voter registration.

Senator Lee Constantine of Florida gives us some insight into what this new election reform package means to voters, candidates and the state. He also tells us why the state of Florida decided to go ahead with its presidential primary on January 29, instead of waiting until Super Tuesday.

Listen to our podcast with Senator Constantine of Florida (7:40).

High School Poll Workers in Illinois

by Karl Kurtz

The following comes from the Mikva Challenge.  They didn't provide me with a link to the Medill Reports where this item was originally published, so I am reproducing it in full here.

In 2000, only 50 high school students worked as election judges; with Mikva's help, that number has now swelled to close to 1,900. We thought we'd share with you an article published in Medill Reports that details the students training for a long day's work. And if you see a Mikva student judge in your polling place on Feburary 5th, be sure to say hi!--The Mikva Staff

They might be too young to vote, but they're old enough to supervise the polling sites.

More than 1,800 Chicago high school juniors and seniors will be dispersed throughout the county to help preside over the polling stations on Feb. 5, even though most are too young to cast a ballot.

Despite a lack of experience with the voting process, teenagers are quickest to grasp the new voting technology, according to Chicago Board of Elections spokesman Jim Allen.

"This generation is more comfortable working with computers than any other," said Allen, who added that Chicago has more high school election workers than any other city.

Students must have a 3.0 grade point average to participate in the program, and are paid $170 - the same as the adults receive - for both the expected 18 to 20 hours of work on Super Tuesday and the four-hour interactive crash course.   

High schoolers make up more than one-tenth of the 14,000 total election judges and are placed in a polling site in their own ward, according to Brian Brady, executive director of the Mikva Challenge, which has turbocharged student recruitment in recent years and doubled the number of students from last year.

"They're energetic, non-partisan and all smart enough to problem-solve," said Brady, who added that Mikva, which is funded by the McCormick Tribune Foundation, contacts high schools and pays teachers to recruit student workers. "It's a great civics lesson for young people, and they're probably the best judges in the polling places."

State Rep. Julie Hamos of Evanston said the thinking behind allowing teens to serve as judges, which took effect in the November 2000 election, was simple.

"We are always looking for volunteers because it's not well-paid, it's hard work, it's a  long day and we needed more of them."

Obama Candidacy Brings State Legislatures into Presidential Spotlight

by Karl Kurtz

It's not often that arcane matters of state legislative organization and procedure enter the realm of presidential politics, but thanks to Sen. Barack Obama's relatively recent service in the Illinois Senate, it has happened twice in recent weeks.

Over on Governing's 13th Floor, Josh Goodman writes in "Now That's Harsh" about Sen. Hillary Clinton scoffing last week that Sen. Obama had been "a part-time legislator" in Illinois.  After commenting on the oddity of this charge for a legislator from a state that we normally count as "full-time" (it's a relative term--see "What Happened to the 'Citizen' in the 'Citizen Legislature?'"), Josh concludes:

It seems slightly surreal to me that part-time state legislatures are a presidential campaign issue, even a minor one. If Obama responds by praising the tradition of part-time citizen lawmakers and Clinton fires back that full-time professional legislatures are essential given the complexity of contemporary state policy and the need to check the power of other branches of government, I'll know I'm dreaming.

I couldn't agree with Josh more.  But I am also tempted to add this thought: Isn't any member of Congress who spends several years running for President being a part-time legislator?

And then in Monday night's Democratic debate in South Carolina, John Edwards asked Obama to explain why he had voted "present" 100 times while serving in the Illinois Senate.  The public may have started yawning at this point in the debate, but in The Thicket, the land of legislative junkies, we got excited.  Obama responded (like a legislative junkie) that these votes were tactical moves expressing concern about the contents of a bill without actually voting against it:

This evening NPR ran a good piece quoting our friends Rich Miller at thecapitolfaxblog and Chris Mooney of the University of Illinois at Springfield about how voting "present" is used in Illinois. For the most part they supported Obama's version of the story.  [January 25 update: Daniel Vock in Stateline.org also talked to Illinois legislators of both parties about this topic who also backed Obama's statements.]

The charge has also generated a number of media calls to NCSL about other states besides Illinois that allow the practice of voting present.  My colleague, Natalie O'Donnell, has been researching this question.  So far she has come up with half a dozen legislative chambers that allow voting "present".  Curiously, the Illinois Senate is not one of them, because the practice is not in the written rules of that body.  It's a matter of custom and practice, say the legislative staffers she has talked to about this.

The chambers that allow voting "present" (other than for reasons of a conflict of interest) include the Colorado Senate (rule 17), the Delaware House (rule 26) and Senate (rule 11), the Massachusetts House (rule 52), Missouri House (rule 23) and the Texas Senate (rule 6.16).  We're still checking and will update this list if we discover more.

By the way, with the withdrawal of the Toms--Tancredo, Thompson (Tommy) and Vilsack--from the presidential race, we're down to only three candidates for President who previously served in state legislatures.  If you can't name them, check out our quiz on this subject a year ago.

A 2008 State Election Forecast with Historical Perspective

by Karl Kurtz

Following closely on Stateline.org's forecast of gubernatorial and legislative election politics in 2008, the venerable former Washington Post White House reporter Lou Cannon has written his own rundown for State Net's Capitol Journal on the 2008 state elections in "The times, they are a-changin'."  (After Cannon complains about how overused the word "change" is in this campaign, is this hackneyed phrase the best headline they could come up with?)  This article is less detailed than the one in Stateline.org, but it has some good quotes from NCSL's Tim Storey and some even better historical perspective on how frequently presidential landslides for one party or another are not accompanied by gains in the states. 

Few reporters can offer the perspective that Lou Cannon, who turned his beat covering Gov. Ronald Reagan in California into a long-term gig covering the White House and five books on Reagan, does.  Capitol Journal has done well to land him as a monthly columnist.

PolySigh

by Karl Kurtz

Normally, The Thicket steers clear of covering presidential politics because too many words are being written about it already.  Besides, our beat is state, not national politics.  We'll cover the national elections as they affect legislative and gubernatorial elections but not otherwise.

But one of the things that The Thicket attempts to do from time to time is to link the academic political science community to the world of state government practitioners.  In that spirit, I came across a very interesting blog on presidential politics today.  At PolySigh, a group of more or less well-known political scientists is writing "the political science take on things"--things, in this case, being the presidential election.  It's good stuff.

Besides, I love the title.

And while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that our colleagues at Governing's 13th Floor, whose beat is very similar to The Thicket's, have taken the opposite tack and are writing a lot about the presidential sweepstakes.  Alan Greenblatt and Josh Goodman especially have been on target in their analysis of the primary elections