Running for office isn’t easy, and even a well-liked candidate can’t expect everyone they’ve ever met to support his or her campaign. But Republican Stafani Carter, running in what Texas House Republicans insist is a prime pickup opportunity, found out last week that even her own bosses are supporting the Democratic incumbent.

Gromer Jeffers, Jr. at the Dallas Morning News has the story:

Republican Stefani Carter, a lawyer at the Sayles Werbner law firm in Dallas, won't have the support of her bosses in the District 102 House race.

The firm's co-founders, Richard "Dick" Sayles and Mark Werbner, have endorsed Democrat and incumbent Carol Kent for the seat. They have also given Kent campaign donations.

"Carol Kent is one of the most effective voices that North Texans have in Austin," Sayles said in a news release from the Kent campaign.

[hat-tip Burnt Orange Report]

Ouch.

Of course, Carter is the most recent GOP candidate to be caught padding her resume and copying one of President Obama’s most famous speeches (despite running on an anti-Obama platform), so it’s no surprise that she’s failed to inspire the confidence of her employers.

But consider this: having a member of their team elected to the legislature would be a source of great prestige for any law firm. And they’re risking their spurned employee’s wrath if she should pull the upset and wind up in the legislature. Yet despite these enormous incentives to support Carter, her employers simply couldn’t bring themselves to do it.

So here’s the bottom line for voters in the Dallas-area 102nd district. If the people you’d expect to support a candidate won’t – those who know her best and have seen her perform in the workplace – how can anyone?

The Democratic candidate is State Representative Carol Kent.

There’s no place for this.

Dan Manning, a Democratic military veteran running for Kansas’ 91st State House seat (based in Wichita), has reported receiving a death threat on his front door.

Manning was discharged from the military under the infamous Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and while his sexuality has not been a focus of his campaign, the motivations of the coward who left the threatening letter were plain:

Dan’s opponent is long-time incumbent Brenda Landwehr. Landwehr, a notorious far-right conservative, has been a vocal opponent of equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgendered Kansans. Since February, she has used Dan’s sexual orientation to stir up her constituent. She has gone so far as to use language that Dan was told was “too offensive” to repeat.

This weekend, the homophobia and name-calling took a dangerous and criminal turn.

Dan arrived home from work on Saturday to find a death threat attached to his front door. Crudely cut from newspaper headlines was a crass note that read:

“DISTRICT 91 Democrat Dan N. Manning, 29, production supervisor, manningforkansas.com”
“2010 State House Election”
“Will DIE”
“FaGIT”
“Kill”
“HOMO”
“MURDER”
“Head OFF”

[hat-tip Kansas Equality Coalition]

Manning has focused much of his campaign on job creation, education, and renewable energy. And as he explained to Think Progress (which has posted a copy of the letter), Manning does not believe his opponent or her campaign is behind the threat. He spoke out about the incident in an interview with KAKE News in Wichita:

["]Running as a gay man in Kansas and a Democrat, as well, I expected there would be some intimidation, some threats, but nothing I don't think ever really prepares you for that," he said. "It was still quite shocking."

The threats were concocted using newspaper or magazine copy of letters cut out and glued in formation to spell out certain words.

"I think it's important for people to know that there is still hate and bigotry alive and well in this country," Manning explained. "When something like this happens, I think it's important to call it for what it is."

Wichita police are investigating.

MEMORANDUM TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS & ACTIVISTS
FROM: Michael Sargeant, DLCC Executive Director
SUBJECT: Redistricting Now

Overview

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) is the national party organization that represents state lawmakers from across the country. Our mission is to build and maintain winning, state-of-the-art campaign committees through partnerships with legislative leaders, professional staff, and supporters.

The DLCC has been helping Democrats make gains at the state level since its inception in 1994. In this pre-redistricting year, the DLCC plans to spend $20 million on targeted legislative chambers. The DLCC builds strategic, accountable legislative programs in our targeted states through work with legislative leadership and caucus directors.

Democrats have been winning races consistently at the state legislative level for years. That’s why President Bush’s political gurus are lining up to game the system again. Republican leaders are highlighting the importance of this election and called on the Grand Old Party to use redistricting to reassemble Republican majorities in Congress.

Redistricting Implications

After the 2010 election, lawmakers in a majority of states will meet to draw the lines for both congressional and legislative districts. Having a say in this process is the only way that we can ensure a Democratic agenda gets traction in the future. Of the legislatures with the power to draw congressional maps, 23 chambers in 17 states are within five seats of changing hands. These 17 states will draw 198 Congressional Districts.

The bottom line: The results of the 2010 state legislative elections will define how key reforms and policies are decided for the next decade.

History has taught us that redistricting will have a near instant impact on the makeup of Congress.

In 2002, the first election after the last round of redistricting, 17 congressional seats changed hands—many analysts believe redistricting accounts for 15 of those losses. Because Republicans controlled a majority of the nation’s state houses after the 2000 election, the GOP was able to make substantial gains in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Legislatures in the Crosshairs

Democrats are ready to win in 2010. Already this year, we have gained seats in special elections in Republican-leaning areas, despite shifts in the national political landscape. But the hard work of consolidating the gains our lawmakers have made since 2003 is still ahead of us. Ten chambers where we hold majorities have tight contests this year:

• Alabama Senate (20D, 15R)
• Colorado Senate (21D, 14R)
• Indiana House (52D, 48R)
• Nevada Senate (12D, 9R)
• New Hampshire Senate (14D, 10R)
• New York Senate (32D, 29R, 1 vacancy)
• Ohio House (53D, 46R)
• Pennsylvania House (104D, 98R, 1 vacancy)
• Wisconsin Assembly (52D, 46R, 1I)
• Wisconsin Senate (18D, 15R)

We also have our eye on the Alabama House, Michigan House and the North Carolina Senate and House. Despite comfortable Democratic margins in those chambers, Republicans are taking those states seriously. But the Bush team is on the defensive in 4 states. We have a real shot of gaining majorities in:

• Michigan Senate (16D, 22R)
• Kentucky Senate (17D, 20R, 1I)
• Tennessee House (48D, 50R, 1I)
• Texas House (73D, 77R)

Mobilizing for the Fight

In 2010, the DLCC is running the largest Democratic redistricting mobilization in history to ensure that our state legislative candidates have the resources needed to win against well-heeled Republican special interests. To make this possible, we have established the DLCC’s Redistricting Fund to deploy resources to races that will have the greatest impact on reapportionment.

If and when Democrats are successful in our targeted state legislative races, the Democratic Party will have an impact on the redrawing of enough congressional districts across the country to affect the partisan makeup of Congress for the next decade. Of all the contests on the ballot this fall, state legislative races may be the least conspicuous; they also may be more important to the long-term health of the Democratic Party than all the rest combined.

Last night, a helpful post on redistricting went up on DailyKos. askew provides historical context, an overview of the Democratic playing field, and a call to action, all in one little paragraph:

In 2001-2... Because the Republicans controlled so many state houses during the restricting process, they were able to create gerrymandered districts that resulted in historic gains for the Republicans in the 2002 midterms. The Democratic Party is determined to not let that happen again. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) (help elect state Reps/Sens), The National Democratic Redistricting Trust (legal team to fight redistricting) and Foundation for the Future (a 527 funded primarily by unions to provide data to the Democratic Party on how to draw maps to favor Democrats). However, they will need our help to GOTV and raise money for the 2010 midterms.

This morning, Alex Burns’ Morning Score gave us a nice little plug:

COMING SOON – THE DLCC’S MAP: The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, charged with waging state House and Senate campaigns this fall ahead of the next round of redistricting, is preparing to release a memo to Democratic stakeholders outlining the most urgent targets for the party this fall. “Of the legislatures with the power to draw congressional maps, 23 chambers in 17 states are within five seats of changing hands. These 17 states will draw 198 Congressional Districts,” DLCC executive director Michael Sargeant writes. “The bottom line: The results of the 2010 state legislative elections will define how key reforms and policies are decided for the next decade.” The DLCC’s top defensive targets: the Alabama Senate, Colorado Senate, Indiana House, Nevada Senate, New Hampshire Senate, New York Senate, Ohio House, Pennsylvania House and both chambers in Wisconsin. And its picks for offense: the Michigan Senate, Kentucky Senate, Tennessee House and Texas House.

Tune into this space next Monday for the memo to which he refers.

With questions beginning to fly concerning specific states, the DLCC is pleased to present, via RedistrictingFacts.com, a state-by-state breakdown of how redistricting actually works in each.

For example, did you know that an Independent Redistricting Commission administers the redistricting of both state legislative and congressional districts in Arizona? Check out the website to learn how the Commission members are appointed!

Were you aware that Governors have no veto authority over the maps drawn by the state legislatures in Connecticut and North Carolina?

Have you heard about the various states in which state Supreme Courts have some authority over the redistricting process?

Learn about all these things and more at http://redistrictingfacts.com/redistricting-by-state/!

In politics, any time you can get your opponent to repeat your own talking points, you’ve got the upper hand.

That’s what if felt like the other day when the Republican State Leadership Committee publicized a new Siena College poll showing only 27% of New Yorkers want the closely-divided State Senate to return to GOP control. Another 33% wanted Democrats to expand their 32-30 majority, and 34% said they were happy with the narrowly-divided status quo. We had highlighted the same poll earlier in the day.

The RSLC was thrilled because in their minds, that meant a “Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Democrat Gains in State Senate.” But they neglected to mention one important detail: the narrowly divided status quo is one in which Democrats nevertheless have a majority. Which means two-thirds of New Yorkers want either a small Democratic majority or an expanded one.

Only a quarter of New Yorkers actually believe that a Republican-controlled State Senate would be good for the people of New York.

Maybe that’s why the RSLC linked to the Siena College media release - which doesn’t even mention the question about State Senate control – and not to the poll results themselves.

And unless there’s any confusion about who those “keep it closely divided” voters are really planning to vote for, that 27% support for a Republican Senate looks pretty close to a high-water mark for the GOP statewide. In every single statewide head-to-head Siena tested, no Republican candidate earns more than 29% of the vote.

This is the clearest evidence yet that New York voters are not prepared to hand their government back to the party whose total disregard for middle class Americans caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in, and whose leaders have spent the last two years obstructing Democratic efforts to fix their mess.

Ninety years ago today, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was signed, granting women everywhere the right to vote.

As we celebrate that day, we must never forget that universal suffrage is another in a long line of progressive victories in which states led the way - and set the stage - for national action.

Wyoming Territory went first, allowing women to vote in 1869. And after Wyoming became a state in 1890 - the first U.S. state allowing universal suffrage - other states began to fall like dominoes: Colorado in 1893, Utah in 1895, Idaho in 1896.

By the day the 19th Amendment was signed on August 26th, 1920, 15 states guaranteed women the right to vote in all elections. Thirteen other states allowed women to vote for presidential electors. Still others had granted limited voting rights for municipal offices or ballot initiatives.

But just as states like Wyoming and Colorado set the stage for women's voting rights many years ago, progress is on the march for many of today's progressive priorities if we only look to the states:

-- The Public Option: One state is already building its own state-level public option, and several others are studying the idea for themselves. California has even passed a bill to create a single-payer health care system (only to see it vetoed by a Republican governor).

-- Climate Change: Nine states already operate under a regional cap and trade system, and many other states have passed strict renewable energy standards or tax credits for clean energy projects.

-- Equal Rights: Seven states and the District of Columbia either grant full civil marriage equality or recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Seven more states allow for same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The history is clear: when progressives invest their energy in the states, we win nation-wide.

Today's anniversary is a poignant reminder of that pattern. And to me, it's also a reminder of why I became involved in state legislative elections in the first place.

Sincerely,

Michael Sargeant
Executive Director
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

As Mark Twain might say, the reports of Democratic state legislators’ deaths are greatly exaggerated.

And by “deaths” I mean “defeats.” Every week it seems new articles and columns pop up describing how Republicans are going to make massive gains in state legislative chambers and, consequently, dominate the redistricting process in key states this fall. One observer went so far as to describe Democrats as “victims of their own success,” referring to the inevitability of Republicans eroding the gains Democrats have achieved in statehouses since the last redistricting.

Don’t buy into the hype.

The “wave election” narrative that’s being pushed by Republicans encourages observers to forget that the DLCC’s fortunes are not necessarily tied to those of the other party committees. (Although the DCCC's fortunes for the next ten years are inextricably tied to the DLCC's success this cycle.)

History supports this assessment. Democrats were making gains in state legislatures while Democrats on the national level struggled mightily. In the 2004 election, Democrats lost seats in the U.S. House and Senate while George W. Bush handily won reelection. Meanwhile, in the statehouses, Democrats picked up majority control in a net of six legislative chambers- and this was only the second election cycle after the 2000 redistricting, described by conservatives as the GOP’s “best in 50 years.”

In a non-presidential election year, it is reasonable to expect national politics to play even less of a roll in local, down-ballot races than they did six years ago.

The Democratic candidates for state legislatures have succeeded in both hostile and friendly political climates for several reasons. We worked with Democratic candidates to enable them to run technically and strategically adept races while also localizing the context of their elections. Strong candidate recruitment, district-specific polling and research, candidate-specific field efforts, and localized messages have been key in Democratic victories.

The DLCC continues to build and maintain winning, state-of-the-art campaign committees through partnerships with legislative leaders, professional staff, and supporters. We create strategic, accountable legislative programs in states through work with legislative leadership and caucus directors.

This is how we’ve won, and this is how we’ll continue to win.

So don’t you dare bury us yet.

Chas Sisk at The Tennessean recently profiled one Democratic State House candidate’s efforts and described how his campaign fits into the larger Democratic effort to regain a majority in the Tennessee State House:

Wanda Clew doesn't agree with Democrats on much, but when David LaRoche, a 30-year-old candidate for the state House of Representatives knocked on her door last week, she was ready to talk.

Standing on her front porch in southern Rutherford County on a late summer afternoon, Clew said the recession had cost her a factory job. Now retraining as a nurse, Clew has relied on unemployment payments to help make ends meet, and she resents Republican resistance to their extension.

"I'm a die-hard Republican, but they didn't back me up on that," Clew said. "I'm not happy with the president, and I'm not happy with the speaker of the House. But we'll see."

The Tennessee State House is one of a handful of states where Democrats are in position to go on offense this cycle. If they are successful, the field effort – candidates themselves and local volunteers going door-to-door speaking to voters – will play a major role in their success. Another major key to victory will be candidates’ knowledge of their communities and focus on local issues where state legislators can have a unique impact.

LaRoche, running in House District 48, gets it:

LaRoche has also set a goal of knocking on 10,000 doors before Election Day, a plan that will put him before countless swing voters like Clew. His pitch — that they should ignore the social and political issues that favor Republicans, at least in this one race.

"For me, it's all about Rutherford County," he said. "I'm not going to waste time on cable-news topics that maybe get people riled up on either side of the issue."

LaRoche isn’t the only one. Caucus Chairman Mike Turner – the newest member of the DLCC Board of Directors – will be carrying that same message to his House colleagues and Democratic challengers throughout the campaign season.

But the stakes for LaRoche, Turner, and Democrats everywhere go far beyond Rutherford County. As Tennessee GOP Chairman Chris Devaney revealed, picking up just two State House seats would shatter the Republican dream of gerrymandering three new congressional seats for the Republicans:

”we can pick up three seats (in Congress)," said Devaney. "The national Democrats know that, and they are going to be pouring money into the state. … That's why the Republican Party of Tennessee is going to do everything in its power to help our candidates."

Thanks to the closeness of the chamber and a wide disparity in potential pickup opportunities, the Democratic House Caucus has reason to be bullish about its ability to regain the majority they lost in 2008. Republicans are defending six open seats to the Democrats two, and they’re also defending eight first-term lawmakers compared to the Democrats’ four.

That puts the Republicans at something of a high water mark right now, forcing them to nearly run the table in order to cling to their 50-48-1 advantage.

New York Democrats have had to face a rocky economy and recession-induced budget shortfalls in their first few years as the majority party in the State Senate. But New York voters remember the previous 40 years of GOP control, and according to a new Siena College poll, only 27% of New York voters want to go back:

• 33%: Want to see Democrats expand their State Senate majority

• 34%: Prefer the status quo, in which Democrats hold a narrow edge
• 27%: Want to see Republicans re-take a majority

This has to be unwelcome news for State Senate Republicans. Between the GOP infighting occurring up and down the ballot and the collapse of the Senate Republicans’ statewide campaign apparatus, Republican Senate candidates were depending on a hostile electorate to carry them over the top in key districts.

But that electorate, while clearly hostile to incumbents (only 31% plan to re-elect their incumbent Senator in a generic question), is not scapegoating Democrats for the state’s troubles. And with Republicans showing extreme weakness in every statewide contest tested in the Sienna poll, there are no coattails for GOP legislative candidates to ride.

The New York Senate is a top redistricting priority for the Democratic Party this cycle, because Democratic control of the chamber would give Democrats complete control of the redistricting process for both congressional and state legislative districts.

Democrats have not held a majority in both legislative chambers in New York during a redistricting year since 1910 - exactly 100 years ago. The only other time this has occurred (since the advent of the Republican Party as a competitor) was in 1870.

Thanks to the 2/3 Democratic majority in the Connecticut Legislature, Democrats in 2009 overrode the governor’s veto of a bill to create “SustiNet,” designed to be the nation’s first true public option health insurance plan. But with the Connecticut Legislature and governorship up for election in 2010, many analysts believe that this year’s voters hold the fate of SustiNet in their hands.

And the choice couldn’t be clearer – if you live in Connecticut and believe in building a public option, you need to get out and vote for Democrats. The American Prospect’s Joanne Kenen explained the situation:

Though approved in concept by the state Legislature, SustiNet at this point is only a concept. It has a board, a cadre of volunteer analysts, and task forces as well as support from foundations, advocates, and Democratic legislators. But the commission must go back to the Legislature next year for final approval -- and funding -- in an environment that is fiscally challenging and politically uncertain. The race to succeed Gov. Jodi Rell, a moderate Republican who is not seeking re-election, is competitive, and the Legislature, which passed the SustiNet bill and then overrode Rell's veto, could have a different composition post-November. For political or economic reasons, SustiNet could be delayed or scaled down. But state Rep. Chris Donovan, the speaker of the Connecticut House, says the idea has broad public support. The message he has been relaying around the state, he says, is, "Better plan, costs less. Like that beer commercial: tastes great, less filling."

We hope you caught that – even a self-proclaimed “moderate” Republican vetoed the plan last year, despite broad public support (that seems to be happening a lot lately). Which means the best way to guarantee that SustiNet stays on track is to maintain the Democrats’ veto-proof majority in the legislature.

It would take a disastrous election cycle to break State House Democrats’ 114-37 advantage, but State Senate Democrats currently sit right at the 2/3 mark with a 24-12 edge. Just like the federal health care reform bill, not a single Republican State Senator voted to pass SustiNet.

And make no mistake, if SustiNet goes online in 2012 as planned, it will be a groundbreaking achievement for health care reform:

[SustiNet Board Co-Chair Kevin] Lembo and other advocates note that SustiNet is not just a coverage mechanism. It was conceived, too, as a catalyst for delivery-system reform, aiming to improve quality while restraining costs. Various task forces are working on creating or expanding medical homes and chronic -- disease management, electronic medical records, incentives for evidence-based medicine, and public-health initiatives on obesity and tobacco. Addressing racial and socioeconomic health disparities is also an explicit goal. Lembo said the public option could end up covering about 1 million people out of Connecticut's 3.5 million, meaning it could have a big ripple effect on health-care delivery and public health throughout the state.

If the experience of Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Oregon are any guide, it could also become a model for other states to follow – and possibly the federal government as well.