Matt Yglesias, a blogger for The Atlantic, wrote a post today that I’ve been thinking about a lot.

He attended a presentation on new media given by Rep. Steve Harrelson, the House Majority Leader in Arkansas, at the DLC National Conversation. Harrelson writes a blog called Under the Dome, which just for the record, it is pretty incredible. Matt agrees, calling it (and other blogs like it):

[A] kind of fascinating development that potentially has a lot of promise for state and local officials who don't necessarily have big staffs.

Harrelson is not alone in writing online -- in Virginia, Dels. Kris Amundson and Bob Brink write a really good blog called 7 West; in Idaho, Rep. Nicole LeFavour writes a fantastic blog, which is authentic and honest in a way that I really love; and there are many others.

But often, these leaders are the exception and not the rule.

In his post, Matt describes how the state and local officials in the room were scared about the consequences of being involved online:

All anyone wanted to talk about was fear about what might go wrong on the internet. Could one of my kids write something on their Facebook page that embarrasses me? What if I become the victim of unfair attacks from anonymous people writing online? What about journalistic standards? Wither truth? The whole litany of internet-related fears.

I’d love to say that this is the reason that we developed the DLCCWeb. But in truth, we built it to counter a second set of problems -- making the Internet simple and affordable enough that all of our legislative candidates can build and update their own websites.

Encouraging the mentality to engage in online democracy is a different proposition. But we’re trying. Blog publishing is built right into DLCCWeb, along with volunteer tools, online fundraising, and social network integration. This cycle, several hundred candidates (with a whole range of technology comfort levels) are using the Internet in a way that they haven't before because of this service.

And we're doing our best to take the lessons of the Internet to heart in house and to practice what we preach on this blog.

I’d love to hear some feedback from the people who are reading this. Are we succeeding? What can we do better? Submit a comment or send me an email -- compton[at]dlcc.org.

As a native Oklahoman, it was my sad duty to tell my colleagues at the DLCC of the untimely passing of State Representative Terry Hyman of Leon, OK. Rep. Hyman died in a farming accident Friday night.

While I didn’t know Rep. Hyman personally, I was well aware of his reputation as a fair, gentle leader.

In the words of Democratic Leader Danny Morgan, “He was a quiet and steady legislator. He had respect among all of the members out there, both Republicans and Democrats. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family."

"Today, Oklahomans mourn the loss of a dedicated and beloved public servant," said Governor Brad Henry. "Terry Hyman was a true native son of Oklahoma. He loved farming and rodeo, and he was fiercely devoted to making a better life for his constituents. In the wake of his tragic and untimely death, I know I speak for all Oklahomans when I say Rep. Hyman's wife and family are in our thoughts and prayers.”

Here at the DLCC, we too pass along our prayers for Rep. Hyman’s family and friends.

Mrs. Hyman has asked that gifts be sent in Terry’s name to: Oklahoma Baptist Girls' Home, 1117 Anthony Lane, Madill, Oklahoma 73446, or securely online to or the Terry Hyman Memorial, Leon Baptist Church, Leon, OK 73441.

I’m a hack who works for a campaign committee, and I’d like nothing more than to see a Congress filled by Democrats elected to districts drawn by state legislatures filled by Democrats.

But I realize that’s never going to happen.

The reality is that we live in a world with give and take between the parties, where districts must still be drawn so that elections can be held. And that brings us to the crucial question of how to do it.

It’s not a secret that partisan redistricting can lead to some pretty ugly results. Given my job, perhaps that’s silly for me to say, but I’d be crazy to argue otherwise.

That said, it’s not as if there is a slew of inviting alternatives out there for a reformer to choose from.

Ed Kilgore, who is both a mentor of mine and a longtime advocate for substantial changes in the redistricting process, said this today yesterday in a post about gerrymandering and voter turnout:

The most common reform, the creation of "independent" redistricting commissions, does directly deal with the conflict of interest involved in state legislators drawing up their own maps. But the record of such commissions on congressional redistricting is mixed at best, tending to produce political compromises more than competitive districts. The problem is that it requires positive action, not just an alleged absence of "partisan politics," to create a truly competitive map. And indeed, truly competitive schemes often run afoul of "traditional redistricting principles" like compact districts that respect jurisdictional lines as much as gerrymandering does.

I bring this up because the voters of California will get to decide the fate of yet another redistricting ballot initiative in November. And while supporters of the measure claim bipartisan support, it has been formally rejected by the state Democratic Party.

As it should be.

The California measure, funded by GOP-money, is backed by Republicans for one reason: they hope it will help them draw an electoral map which makes a Republican Speaker a possibility.

And that is the political reality.

If we lived in a perfect world, nonpartisan commissions might be a wonderful vehicle for drawing legislative districts.

But we live in a world where Republicans are competing with us for power, and they’re frankly unafraid to use every advantage at their disposal in order to get it.

If we want a government with a Democratic agenda, we have to elect Democrats. The calculus is as simple as that.

Democrats won't pick up a chamber in Kansas this fall; I can almost guarantee that.

The Republicans hold a 20 seat advantage in the Senate, and a 31 seat advantage in the House. I'm not giving away any trade secrets when I say that the state isn't one of our top targets this year.

That's not stopping Kansas Democrats, however, from putting in maximum effort.

They're fielding candidates in 36 of 40 Senate districts and in 96 of 125 House districts, all with the aim of making the GOP compete for its majorities.

That's valuable for a number of reasons.

First, even in a state where voter registration favors Republicans by a 2-1 margin, the political climate has damaged the GOP brand. In Kansas, you've also got two-term Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and two Democrats in Congress who are popular and vocal leaders. Here, Democrats might have the potential to pick up some seats this year, even in districts that we don't normally have any business winning.

Second, by running so many candidates, Kansas Democrats force the GOP to spend resources protecting their incumbents that they could otherwise devote to more competitive races. Sure, the U.S. Senate race doesn't exactly seem like it's going to be a highlight (though Jim Slattery does show some life in the latest poll), and Kansas is also one of those states where Obama doesn't stand much of a chance. But competitive GOP incumbents in the statehouse can't count on monetary support from their colleagues who also have opponents. And that's a good thing.

Finally, every additional seat at the legislative table helps to change the conversation in the state. Even if we don't control a majority, we need more Democratic lawmakers talking about health care and education in Kansas. We need more Democratic incumbents developing relationships with constituents and providing leadership for the party. And importantly, even if the Democratic women and men elected this cycle never serve a day in the majority, some of them will some day become future candidates for higher elective office.

One of the things that I like best about the DLCC is our work to win majorities gradually by building infrastructure, providing resources, and training staff. Kansas is one of the states, for instance, taking advantage of our DLCCWeb program -- which provides our candidates with cheap and powerful Internet tools for campaigning.

It's also a place where we can afford to take the long view -- patiently laying groundwork for bigger wins in the future.

Last year, Frank Morales -- the executive chef at Rustico, a trendy restaurant in Alexandria -- developed an incredible frozen treat for the summer: the Hopsicle.

Morales uses various Belgian fruit beers as a base to build a layer of unexpected complexity to his icy creations, then serves the deserts in three basic flavors -- plum, raspberry, and fudge (and other flavors rotate in on a regular basis).

The restaurant put out a press release to celebrate this wondrous feat of gastronomical imagination, and that’s when Morales and the Hopsicle ran into trouble. A reporter for the Associated Press called the Virginia Department Alcohol Beverage Control who announced that there was a regulatory problem:

Philip Disharoon, special agent in charge of the Alexandria division of the Virginia ABC, said beer must be served in its original container, or served immediately to a customer once it is poured from its original container.

"If we're talking about taking a beer and pouring it from a bottle or a keg into some sort of mold and freezing it, then that product is not legal," Disharoon said. He planned to send an agent to investigate.

Enter two Virginia Democrats: Delegate Adam Ebbin and Sen. Patsy Ticer, who changed the state law to preserve the sense of childlike wonder in the hearts of diners throughout the state.

That’s a job well done.

To me, the retirement of Sen. Joseph Bruno means one thing -- he believes that the Republicans will lose their majority in the New York Senate, and he has no desire to serve in the minority.

Already this cycle, we’ve seen some really good indications that might be correct.

On February 26, Democrat Darrel Aubertine won a special election in New York's 48th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP since 1880, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 78,454 to 46,824.

Three weeks earlier, Democrat Craig M. Johnson won a special election in New York’s 7th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP for more than a century.

Things were so bad in February that Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- the GOP’s single biggest Senate benefactor -- had to write a $500,000 check to keep them competitive. Prior to that little gift, he contributed at least $675,000 between October 2006 and December 2007.

So now, there are 32 Republicans in the New York Senate and 30 Democrats. In a traditional election, there are Republican seats (like those in New York City, which Reid Wilson points out) which would be vulnerable. But remember -- this is a presidential election year, and Democrats have a significant enthusiasm advantage. When I look at the map, New York is one of our top targets.

And this is all important not simply because Bruno and the Senate Republicans have managed to bottle up significant pieces of legislation and prevent a major Democratic agenda from getting a hearing in a very progressive state but also because New York is slated to lose two Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting.

Its delegation to Washington will be the smallest the state has sent since 1823. Democrats control the House and the governor’s mansion -- gaining a majority in the upper chamber will give us the strength we need to draw congressional districts in a way that reflects the progressive nature of the state’s electorate.

Indiana Speaker of the House and DLCC Board Member Pat Bauer met with leaders from the University of Indiana to announce the completion of a 1,178 miles of fiber-optic cable that forms the backbone of the network connecting more than 40 of the state's public and private universities.

The network will provide campus users with Internet connections up to 20 times faster than what they can access in their homes -- allowing researchers to access massive data collections and collaborate with professors from other schools.

The network also will vastly improve distance learning programs by enabling high-quality video streaming and high-definition learning tools like telepresence, a videoconferencing technology that gives users the impression of being in the classroom.

The state also believes that this kind of technological infrastructure will help encourage the opening of new business and the creation of new jobs.

All of which makes this a pretty good investment for $13 million.

After the epic voting problems in the 2000 election (HBO made a movie about it -- yes, we can call it epic) many states introduced electronic touch-screen voting machines. Then, in 2004 and 2006, we found out that these machines were also plagued by complications (and didn’t leave a paper trail).

Now, for the first time in eight years, these machines are on the decline, and punch card ballots, which left us with so many hanging chads in Florida, will only be used in 12 Idaho counties.

Instead, around 55 percent of voters will use paper ballots and optical scan voting machines in November (which I've always used on Election Day and find delightful).

On the balance, I take this as pretty great news -- I think we can all agree that making sure that votes get counted is a good thing.

Rep. Fabian Nunez -- Speaker Emeritus of the California Assembly and DLCC Board member -- has an op-ed in the California Progress Report where he takes a hard line against some Republican mischief:

[Last year] Republicans wanted to hold the state budget hostage to win an end-run around CEQA, California’s premier environmental law, which would have benefited oil companies and developers. Not only wasn’t that a budget issue, it wasn’t in California’s best interest and my fellow Democrats and I made it clear that it wasn’t going to happen [...]

This year the rollbacks the Republicans are floating would damage our air quality, disadvantage working people, deny the disabled their full rights and increase the jeopardy the state is facing from global warming. Speaker Bass and the Democratic leadership have rightly and strongly made it clear that the Republicans actions aren’t just unrelated to the budget they are bad for California and will not happen on their watch. The more the public knows about the hostage taking, and the more they see what is really being pursued, the more I believe they will back up the Democrats strong response.

One of the bills the GOP have attempted to delay is AB 32, a groundbreaking law to combat climate change.

This is California -- a place where Silicon Valley start-ups are investing serious cash in technologies to fight global warming. As Nunez notes, studies indicate that AB 32 might create as many as 83,000 jobs. That's part of why the bill has the strong support of the state's business community.

Is there anyone the GOP won't risk alienating these days?

Citing two sources, the Associate Press reports that Republican New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno will not seek reelection.

In Pennsylvania, longtime Republican strongholds in counties throughout the state are slowly shifting away from the GOP.

On Thursday, in Dauphin County -- which includes the state capitol of Harrisburg -- the numbers of registered voters looked like this: 81,489 Democrats and 81,340 Republicans.

In Philadelphia suburbs like Bucks and Montgomery counties, the trend is the same.

Waves of new Democratic voter were registered during the heated primary contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That month of intensive campaigning certainly helped to put some areas over the top.

But this change is part of a longer-term demographic trend, and the end of the primary hasn't stopped the movement:

Statewide, Democrats have added voters since the April 22 primary, picking up 37,529 registrations while Republicans have lost 1,504, according to figures from the Pennsylvania Department of State [...]

From November 2007 to April's primary, the Republican Party lost 58,119 registered voters.

We still have a lot of work to do between now and November to maintain our control of the Penn. House, but information like this is heartening.

Over the weekend, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community -- an organization with tens of millions in 189 countries worldwide -- held its 60th annual U.S. convention in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Last Wednesday, lawmakers in the state decided to sponsor a ceremonial resolution honoring the group. Resolutions like this are routine and most are approved quickly and unanimously. That's why it was so surprising to see this bill cause a controversy.

But cause controversy it did.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from near Pittsburgh, prevented the House from even considering the legislation, arguing:

The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God, and I will be voting negative.

That statement not only offended members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (the group's president called the remarks, "a form of extremism"), it disturbed many of his fellow lawmakers.

Democratic Rep. Babette Josephs of Philadelphia, a Jewish lawmaker, responded by asking:

I wonder what I would not also qualify for -- being on the floor myself? Having the right to vote? Having the right to practice my religion?

The Pennsylvania press is also taking Metcalfe to task, and this editorial from the Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette hits all the right notes:

The Founding Fathers knew about the dangers of sectarianism from the bitter history of the Old World, which is why the Constitution forbade a religious test for office. In America, you can believe in any faith or none -- and Americans have come to expect that religious tests by their representatives won't be applied in any sphere.

Unfortunately, state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Cranberry, was oblivious to this truth last week. Not for the first time in his career, he rushed in where angels fear to tread [...]

Mr. Metcalfe may have meant his remark innocently, but if you make a career of saying ill-considered things, then as ye sow so shall ye reap -- this time a controversy needlessly incited and hurtful to all sorts of people.

The legislature has the opportunity to reconsider the resolution this week, but with the Harrisburg convention ended, it seems that the moment has passed.

I just can't get past what a shame that is.

Yesterday, the North Carolina Senate approved its version of the 2008 budget. Within hours, the Republicans, who are in the minority, organized a press conference to complain about being shut out of the process.

A staffer for the John Locke Foundation -- a conservative ‘nonpartisan’ nonprofit -- showed up to record the event and posted a link to the video on its blog.

While reporters were still working on their stories about the budget, Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger sent out an email:

The N.C. Senate today passed its version of the 2008/2009 state budget. In doing so, they refused to allow a vote on many Republican offered amendments through motions to call the question or table amendments offered. They were able to avoid recorded votes in an apparent strategy in this election year to maintain control.

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and members of the Republican Senate Caucus held a press conference immediately following the conclusion of today’s Senate session to discuss the budget’s passage. To view a video of the Senators’ remarks at the press conference, please click here.

So where does the link to the video of the press conference go?

You guessed it -- the Locke Foundation’s servers. Not to the video posted to the blog -- to a separate piece of footage.

Mark Binker, who covers the Raleigh for the Greensboro News & Record asks:

Does this mean John Locke is dropping the whole non-partisan thing and openly throwing in as a support group for the GOP now, providing "video news release" hosting services and such? Or did Berger's office just rip off the link without giving credit? Or will John Locke be providing "video news release" services for the Democrats when they announce a final budget deal?

I think we can safely rule out that third option.

This is unabashed political coordination between Republican elected officials and a technically-nonpartisan group. And given the state of the GOP establishment in North Carolina, they probably need all the help they can get. But that doesn’t make it ethical or legal.

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't this raise questions about the Locke Foundation's tax status?

Last cycle, an Indiana Republican named Jon Elrod won a heavily contested race for state representative by seven votes.

Earlier this year, he ran in a special election in a Democratic-leaning Congressional seat and lost. For weeks, he’d been toying with making another go at that race in the fall.

Yesterday, he apparently realized that he didn’t have a chance and decided to seek reelection instead.

But here’s the thing: Elrod dithered around for so long that the filing deadline has passed.

Republicans in his county hadn’t found anyone else to run for that seat, and our candidate -- Mary Ann Sullivan -- has been campaigning for months.

Apparently, the GOP can hold a caucus to put Elrod on the ballot, but this is a guy who clearly looks at the statehouse as a stepping stone for something else. He apparently thinks so little of the job that he can’t be bothered to make a decision about it in accordance with the rules that everyone else follows. His constituents deserve better than that.

Yesterday, Greta wrote about the flooding in Iowa.

As rivers in some parts begin to crest and flooding begins to subside, the state government has begun working on its response. Iowa Gov. Chet Culver has said that he is likely to call a special session of the legislature as soon as the federal response is clear.

For their part, legislators seem ready to go to work.

The House has opened up its chamber to workers from the Department of Human Services whose offices have been threatened by flooding.

Sen. Bill Dotzler -- who is among those whose homes have been damaged by flooding -- told reporters that, “If the state can do something to help out, we ought to do it.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has proposed putting together a commission to come up with an aid package.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal -- our chair at the DLCC -- is looking for ways to have the local resources fill the gaps left by federal aid, telling reporters, “We’ll be having discussions with legislators from the affected areas over the coming weeks and be looking at what the state might be able to do.”

Meanwhile, the Red Cross has spent $15 million responding to the floods and has exhausted its disaster relief fund. Please consider contributing here.

On Friday, Crisitunity -- one of the front-pagers on the Swing State Project -- put together a pretty good rundown of the state leg races that Democrats should pay attention to in the fall.

In his post, he looks in depth at five chambers where we have pick-up opportunities: the New York Senate, Texas House, Pennsylvania Senate, Nevada Senate, and Tennessee Senate. He also briefly mentions the Oklahoma Senate (split right down the middle -- 24/24), which deserves to be higher.

I really like his list of ‘moneyball’ chambers -- which might be flipped with just a reasonable investment: the Montana House, Delaware House, North Dakota Senate, South Dakota Senate, and Alaska House.

In terms of pickup opportunities, I think there are only two big omissions. Right now, there is a 46/53 split favoring the Republicans in the Ohio House. We only need four seats to pick up a majority, and the environment is awful for the GOP. The other opportunity might be the Wisconsin Assembly -- where we are only 3 seats down.

Crisitunity also points out five chambers where we will be playing defense: the Pennsylvania House, Michigan House, Indiana House, Oregon House, and Illinois House. To that, I’d add the Colorado Senate, the Maine Senate, the Montana Senate, the Tennessee House, the Wisconsin Senate, and both chambers in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nationally, the environment looks awfully good for Democrats, but locally, things can be very different. And in many districts, the performance numbers are what they are, even in a Democratic year.

We’re cautiously optimistic about the fall, no doubt. But a big victory on Election Day is predicated on lots of months of work between now and then, which in that final set of states means paying careful attention to incumbent protection.

Editor's note: From time to time, we will offer our elected leaders the opportunity to write guest posts about issues in their states.

Simply disappear -- that is what Republican leaders in the Oklahoma House of Representatives want autistic children and those of us fighting for them to do.

Republican House Speaker Chris Benge not only refuses to support a measure to cover these children with health insurance, he wouldn’t even allow representatives to vote on the bill.

“Nick’s Law” -- named for one of the thousands of Oklahoma children suffering from autism -- was very simple. It would have required health insurance policies in Oklahoma to cover the diagnosis and treatment of autism.

Experts tell us such a policy is the best way to give autistic children a chance at a full life when they become adults. It also provides a way to relieve the enormous financial pressures on families who are denied coverage by big insurance.

The Speaker twisted and danced all the way to the adjournment of the 2008 session. He single-handedly prevented a most family friendly policy, hoping that the end of session would be the end of the pressure. That is a serious miscalculation.

Of course, some of the special interest groups have honored those most responsible for killing “Nick’s Law” with awards for courage. There is nothing courageous about turning your back on children who have no voice. Oklahomans know what real courage is -- it is what parents of these children exhibit every day.

Still, despite all the fake awards, the Speaker’s miscalculation about relieving pressure continues to be shown in a stark light. Just last week, a national news program this week highlighted the growing epidemic of children with autism and the push by parents to force health insurance to cover diagnosis and treatment of the disorder.

NBC’s “The Today Show” aired a segment Thursday, June 12 as part of a continuing series of reports on autism. The story featured parents who are encouraging state legislatures across the nation to pass laws requiring coverage of autism diagnosis and treatment.

It is not like the Speaker did not have the chance to do the right thing. “Nick’s Law” passed the Senate on four separate occasions, each time on bipartisan votes. When the proposal arrived in the House of Representatives, it was killed each time when Speaker Benge refused to even allow the bill to be heard.

What the Speaker didn’t count on was the fact that this is a national battle. People are watching, and they expect a fair debate. The “Today Show” segment included a statement on the issue by the special interest group representing insurance companies; the statement is a “slick attempt” by big insurance to have it both ways.

The insurance lobby conceded in the statement that “medically related care should be covered by insurers.” The problem is, once “medically related care” is coded as “autism,” insurance companies refuse to pay claims.

Then the special interest group unveils its real agenda with the following statement: “For those who need assistance, we should be committing public resources to help fund cost--effective programs to care for those who are diagnosed with autism.”

The phrase “public resources” is a fancy way of saying “taxpayer dollars.” Their real agenda is to pass the cost of covering autism on to the taxpayers. That way, insurance companies protect both their robust profits and their ability to fund the political campaigns of politicians who protect them.

The “Today Show” segment gives both sides a chance to make their case, and clearly the momentum to pass bills like Nick’s Law is building. Even in deeply ‘red’ Republican states, lawmakers and governors of both parties are putting aside the special interests for the public interest. It’s too bad Oklahoma’s House leaders could not find it in their hearts or heads to do the same.

Not every House Republican supported their leadership on the issue; four Republican House members signed a “discharge petition” that would have forced a vote on “Nick’s Law.” Then, before they got the required number of signatures, House Republican leaders began enforcing party discipline.

It’s pretty clear Republican leaders dropped the hammer -- preventing members from doing what their conscience told them was the right thing. However, political power in Oklahoma rests with the people not the politicians, and I believe Oklahomans will rise up and force House leadership to get on this train or get run over by it.

They want us to simply disappear. These children will not go away, and their parents will never give up. When the Oklahoma Legislature returns in February, the case to pass Nick’s Law will be greater than ever.

To do nothing -- a course of action with which House leadership is content -- will condemn children who might be saved by diagnosis and treatment. This is just one case where the values of Oklahoma’s Republican House leadership are woefully out of step with the people they were truly elected to serve.

Oklahoma House Republicans may have preserved some campaign contributions, but they will have lost their souls -- and, unless they see the light soon, a good number of the seats they hold in the House of Representatives.

Senator Jay Paul Gumm represents Oklahoma's 6th Senate District

I started working at the DLCC three weeks ago, and part of my job is to track the accomplishments of our elected leaders. Last week, I took a look at the Pennsylvania legislature’s website and was immediately touched by the first story listed on the “Week in Review” page.

Gov. Ed Rendell just signed a Senate Bill into law establishing what’s known as the Cancer Drug Repository Program. This bill, identical to Rep. Tim Solobay’s H.B. 186, allows cancer patients to donate their unused prescription medications so that lower-income patients or those without insurance can buy them at a reduced price.

All-too-often cancer patients are prescribed medication in three-month dosages, and before that time is up, there is a change in the doctor’s treatment plan and the old medicine becomes useless. Under the new program those drugs would no longer be discarded, they would be used to benefit less fortunate patients, which to me, makes it not only economical but also potentially life-saving.

Rep. Solobay is becoming a pioneer in prescription thriftiness, drafting another bill that would incorporate prescription drugs of all varieties into this program. While prescription drugs are becoming more expensive and out of reach for those in need, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, literally! Rep. Solobay is on point with these ideas, and I am eager to see what he’ll accomplish next.

Megan Hannigan is a Klindt/Dye Intern for the 2008 Summer Semester

Through the course of the past week, my home state of Iowa has been hammered by a series of powerful storms and flooding.

On Wednesday, a tornado ripped through a Boy Scout camp in the western part of the state. Four scouts were killed and twenty were injured. Across Iowa, additional tornadoes have claimed the lives of at least 8 others.

Rivers throughout the state have swelled under heavy rains and flooded surrounding areas. Thousands have been forced to evacuate from their homes, and three have been killed as a result of the weather.

On Sunday, the Iowa River, which cuts right through the University of Iowa -- my alma mater -- stabilized at 31.5 feet -- 9 feet above flood level. This morning, sixteen buildings on campus were under water.

Iowa is the nation’s leading corn producer, and 16 percent of the state's 25 million acres of farmland is under water. Millions of acres of crops have already been destroyed.

At the DLCC, our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Iowa.

The American Red Cross is providing relief efforts in the state and throughout the Midwest. If you can, please take a moment to support their work.

Right now, I’m fighting against the urge to get my hopes up for the November. But it’s hard when you keep seeing numbers like this from Pew Research:

A majority of Americans (57%) say they have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, up six points since July 2007 and 10 points since July 2006.

In contrast, views of the Republican Party remain at historic lows. Currently, 53% of Americans express unfavorable views of the Republican Party while only 39% say they have a favorable opinion of the party. These ratings are unchanged from July 2007, and have changed little since April 2006.

That’s great news for Democrats nationwide, but what does it mean for statehouses?

The strength of the brand certainly ought to help some legislators, but for the most part, our candidates will be running local races focused on a host of issues that are different from those obsessed about in Washington. None of us are immune to the enthusiasm that is out there right now, but the reality is that we still have turn out enough votes on Election Day to win. The challenge we face is putting all this energy to work.

Every year, the Maryland League of Conservation Voters publishes a legislative scorecard to provide voters with a clear idea of which elected officials work to promote environment and which do not. Here is a list of those who checked in with the lowest scores this year:

Senate (20% or less):
David R. Brinkley (R)
Richard F. Colburn (R)
Janet Greenip (R)
Larry E. Haines (R)
Andrew P. Harris (R)
Nancy Jacobs (R)
Allan H. Kittleman (R)
Alex X. Mooney (R)
E.J. Pipkin (R)
J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R)

House (0%):
Gail Bates (R)
Joseph C. Boteler III (R)
Donald H. Dwyer, Jr. (R)
Jeannie Haddaway (R)
Rick Impallaria (R)
J.B. Jennings (R)
Tony McConkey (R)
Pat McDonough (R)
Warren E. Miller (R)
Anthony J. O'Donnell (R)
Andrew Serafini (R)
Christopher B. Shank (R)
Donna Stifler (R)
Nancy R. Stocksdale (R)

So what do all of these folks have in common?

That’s right -- They’re all members of the GOP.

Overall, Republican senators averaged a measly 12 percent, while their colleagues in the House scored just 29 percent.

Delightful.

Hello!

My name is Greta Davis and I am the Deputy Political Director here at the DLCC. One of my many tasks is making sure that we are a hub for providing the most up to date information regarding state legislative chamber margins. Please use this memo as a resource for your state legislative needs.

2008 Chamber Margins

Please check back often as I do update these monthly.

In 2003, the Republican-dominated legislature in Texas gave the state university governing boards the ability to set tuition rates for their respective schools. Since then, tuition is up an average of 112 percent across the system. At the University of Texas at Austin -- the state’s flagship institution -- tuition is up 164 percent, and the full cost of a four year education is more than $100,000. Obviously, the students who are hardest hit by these added costs are those from middle-income families, and a cost explosion like this runs the risk of putting the best public schools out of reach.

In a state like Texas, which has a projected budget surplus, renewing a commitment to higher education can be awfully good politics. To that end, I really like the movement to regain control of tuition regulation being led by Rep. Garnet Coleman -- a DLCC board member.

Over the past two weeks, he’s given interviews like this one to newspapers across the state and written an op-ed for The Austin American-Statesman calling for the legislature to reassume authority over the universities. Democrats in the State Senate also grilled school representatives about the tuition increases in a hearing at the end of May.

As we saw with the Democratic legislature in Maryland, this isn’t an impossible task -- increasing funding for higher education in a time where enrollment is on the rise can help keep the costs for students down.

In New Jersey, three bills designed to promote the use of wind and solar energy unanimously passed the Senate Economic Growth Committee and will soon go to the full Senate for consideration.

This year, nearly 50 million students will be enrolled in the nation's public schools according to the Washington Post. That sets a record, which is only expected to continue increasing.

As more soldiers come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers in Maryland are working to ensure that veterans in that state have access to the care they need to return to civilian life. The Veterans Behavioral Health Bill passed both houses without a single vote against it.

A spending bill passed by the California legislature last year now allows the California Air Resources Board to offer taxpayers a $1,000 rebate for the purchase of an electric car.

Last year, the DLCC worked with Democrats in Virginia to win a majority in the Senate for the first time in a decade. That same night, we added four seats in the House of Delegates. In February, we picked up another seat in the House in a special election. This is one of the states where local electoral shifts are helping to change the conversation on a fundamental level.

We’re even seeing that play out in the state Republican Party.

Far-right activists are challenging the authority of longtime GOP establishment figures (deposing the party chair, refusing to endorse the candidate for US Senate), and that has in turn alienated some moderates. Donors are especially unhappy:

[M]any in the business community, centered in Richmond and dubbed “the Main Street boys,” are distressed by the latest turn of events in the state’s Republican Party, and are likely to curtail -- if not end -- their financial support for the Virginia GOP. “Not a penny more,” one former donor reportedly commented. “They are defunding the party,” adds a knowledgeable observer.

In addition, there is one report that some of the old line, well-heeled Republicans may form an independent group to raise funds and distribute them to candidates in both parties who meet their pro-business, center-right criteria, rather than work through the state GOP as they have in the past. If this does happen, the GOP -- once the fair-haired favorite of the state’s business interests -- will have to raise money from small donors and conservative groups. It’s been done -- note Barack Obama’s multi-million dollar success among liberals -- but it will likely result in the state’s Republicans taking a major financial hit, certainly in the short run.

Unfortunately, we don’t get the chance to take on the Republicans this fall. We’ll pick up this fight again in 2009 -- when we will look to pick up an additional 6 seats to win a majority in the House. We’ll get another shot two years later -- when we can work to add to our margin in the Senate. No doubt, the GOP will have found a way to move past some of the infighting by then, which will make the stakes that much higher.

But for today, it’s nice to just lean back and smile at the dysfunction.

Insight. This is a busy election year, and across the Internet, a lot of the oxygen will be devoted to the presidential race. That’s to be expected, but we will carve out a different niche. We’ll provide you with information about state legislators, their races, and the laws that they are working to pass. We’ll also keep you updated about plans for redistricting -- highlighting the states where partisan control of the legislature will make a difference in the composition of the Congressional delegation. And we’ll do that by providing you with our own analysis as well as pointing you toward the best coverage everywhere else. We want our website to be the first place you visit on the web for information about these local races.

Voice. Each post on this blog will be written to offer some context. You’ll never see us publish a throwaway entry that consist of nothing more than a headline and a blockquote. We want to create an authentic series of voices for this organization -- with each of us offering a unique perspective on the work we do and the political situations we encounter. We will sign each of our posts, and we’ll all be available for feedback. We want to have a conversation, so we will read all of your comments and reply to them. We will also link to other blogs and work to build up a dialogue that extends beyond the walls of our site.

Content. Even if things get busy, we will always continue update this blog regularly. While we’ll still send emails, hold events, and organize conference calls, this blog will be the chief outlet for communicating with all of our constituents. News happens in our world every day, and this is where we will respond to it.

There are 7,382 legislators in the country, and there are 12 of us working at the DLCC to make sure that most of these public servants are Democrats.

Right now, our party controls 3,983 of the nation’s legislative seats and 57 of the 98 partisan legislative chambers. We’ve made net gains in every election since 2003, so yes -- we’re good at what we do.

And what is that exactly? How do we spend our time?

We build relationships with legislative leaders, professional staff, and activists in every part of the country. Through those connections, we organize and maintain winning, state-of-the-art campaign committees; develop state-specific electoral strategies; and offer access to tools like polling, communications, research, and fundraising capabilities.

Why does this all matter?

I don’t think it is a secret for anyone reading this blog that most of the public policy in this country that has a direct impact on our everyday lives gets decided in our nation’s statehouses. When we talk about funding for education, or roads, or jobs, for the most part, we’re talking about the work of state representatives and senators.

But let’s put that fact aside for a second; say you’re just interested in the federal government. Then let me ask you this: who draws the boundaries for the U.S. congressional districts?

That’s right, our local legislators.

There are 36 state legislatures that control Congressional redistricting, and 27 chambers in 21 of these states are within 5 seats of tying or changing hands.

Those 21 states will decide the fate of 260 Congressional districts.

And by the way, quite a few of those seats in Congress will be held by former state legislators. That’s where many of the country’s elected officials get their start.

Need proof? Well, just four years ago, Barack Obama was serving the people of Illinois in the state senate.

--

If you’re invested in seeing this country change, then you have to pay attention to our nation’s statehouses, and this website is about to become your new favorite spot on the partisan web. Every day, we will be writing about the latest redistricting news and policy updates; we’ll give you election analysis and profile Democratic leaders across the country; and of course, we’ll point out the worst Republican misdeeds and respond to GOP attacks.

To make this a success, we’re going to depend on feedback from our readers. There are 12 of us and 50 states, and we can’t be on the ground everywhere, all the time. So drop us a line -- we’ll read every comment that you post and every email that you send.

Just before the Oklahoma legislature adjourned, lawmakers passed a major bond initiative, which will invest $300 million into the state’s roads and bridges. The legislation was signed into law this week, and the first bond will be issued in August of 2009.

Across the country, the costs of higher education have been on the rise for years, and nationally, experts expect that trend to continue in 2008.

In fact, the College Board estimates that tuition at the nation’s four-year public universities will increase by an average of 6.6 percent this year.

One state which won’t ask students to pay more, however, is Maryland.

This session, the state’s legislators increased public higher-education funding by 9.7 percent, which gave the schools enough budget flexibility to offer attendees a break.

There are 24 senate seats in New Hampshire, and as of Friday, there is a Democrat running for each of them.

That’s never happened before in the history of the state Democratic Party, and obviously, that means that all the Republican incumbents will have a challenger in November.

Which we at the DLCC kind of love.