We have all seen stories about the persistent problem of unhealthy weight levels in the US, and oftentimes, this news can feel discouraging and overwhelming. In the face of that, the efforts by Democratic legislators nationwide to solve these health problems are impressive.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the big news story on doctors' concerns about high cholesterol problems emerging in children as young as 8 years old -- and how states had already started to pass legislation to address such concerns through improving children's diet and exercise.

Paying attention to the American diet continues to be a key issue and resulted in the governor of California signing landmark legislation on Friday, July 25. This past Saturday's New York Times, recounts the California legislature's passage of a law banning the use of trans fats in restaurants.

According to the story, New York City was the first jurisdiction to ban trans fats and was soon joined by a handful of other cities and counties. But, California is the first state legislature to pass such a law.

The story explains that:

Under the new law, restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities” will, in the preparation of any foods, have to discontinue use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Assembly Bill 97, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, was opposed by most Republicans.

What else have Democratic legislatures done in 2008 to improve the health of Americans?

The Democratically-controlled legislature in Colorado passed a measure that will enable 50,000 more Colorado children to be eligible for Medicaid and the state’s health program for kids.

In the Iowa legislature, Democrats passed a bill expanding health insurance for children to achieve a goal of covering all children by 2010. House File 2539 will greatly increase the health of Iowa's children. Read more on this landmark legislation making Iowa the first state in the nation to cover all its children. (Washington State also passed legislation this year to try to cover all children by 2010. See Senate Bill 5093.)

In Maine, the Democratic majorities expanded the Dirigo health care program for the uninsured. Read more on LD 2247 -- "An Act to Continue Maine's Leadership in Covering the Uninsured" -- here. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Representative Hannah Pingree, will provide insurance rate relief to about 40,000 Mainers. Nearly half of Maine's uninsured are under 30, and the bill addresses these young residents.

And, despite a $3 billion budget shortfall, the Democratic majority in the New Jersey legislature pushed forward on health care with 3 important bills. The first bill aims for universal health insurance for New Jersey residents by 2011 by requiring all children to be covered. A second bill expands NJ FamilyCare for poor families. A third bill -- landmark legislation -- provides the most generous paid family leave in the country -- up to 6 weeks a year to care for family members.

When it comes to health care, Democratic state legislators are both addressing newly emerging healthcare issues (such as trans fats and paid family leave) and also improving access and coverage for basic health insurance.

New York has a law about retired legislators doing business with their former colleagues. Legally, they are forbidden from lobbying the legislature for 2 years after leaving office.

But there's nothing stopping a retired lawmaker from lobbying the executive branch, and that's a loophole that must make Joseph Bruno -- the former Republican leader in the NY Senate -- happy.

Just four days after leaving office, Bruno has found a new job as the chief executive for an information technology firm:

Mr. Bruno’s new employer, CMA Consulting Services, has contracts with the offices of the attorney general and comptroller, as well as the Office of General Services.

And while Bruno can't take the trip down to Albany, the firm he now runs has plenty of business at the state house:

State records show that CMA has hired lobbyists to represent its interests in Albany. In 2007, it spent almost $95,000 lobbying for two bills that never became law. One would have set up a pilot program to monitor traffic in Nassau County using cameras similar to those that CMA sells.

CMA will also put Bruno in a position to continue to help state Republicans. Last cycle, the firm gave more than $5,000 to the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee. I'm guessing that number might even go up a bit next this year.

While Bruno hasn't disclosed what he'll make running the firm, we do know that he's entitled to a Senate pension of between $90,000 and $100,000 a year. Money he'll continue to make as he lobbies the state.

Can't really blame him, though. All that extra cash ought to come in handy with his legal bills...

Finally, it's worth mentioning that the likely reason for Bruno's retirement has to do with Democratic chances in the fall. We believe that we have a great opportunity to pick up the NY Senate, and I've heard a lot of people say that Bruno left office because he had no desire to serve in the minority.

It would be fantastic if he didn't recognize quite as many people when he is cleared to start lobbying for CMA.

Sean Tevis -- my current favorite elected-office-seeking geek -- has gone from profiles on BoingBoing (and DLCC.org!) and landed in the Wall Street Journal.

As you'd imagine, the story is largely about the campaign's fundraising success. So far, Tevis has raised more than $95,000 -- almost entirely from small online donations. His GOP opponent plans to rake in just $35,000 (with very little of that money coming from individuals in his district).

The story includes one detail that I'm both simultaneously relieved and embarrassed that I didn't notice:

Mr. Tevis's coup de grâce was to embed a hidden message, in the source code. He knew that only fellow techies would bother scrolling through the dense lines of programming, so he rewarded them with a message asking them to tack an extra 88 cents on to any donation so he would recognize them. Nearly 20% of his 5,700 or so donors have done that. Mr. Tevis has become such a fund-raising machine that he is fielding calls from legislative candidates in other states asking for advice.

Sure enough, when you pull up the source code, there it is:

Hello person who cares enough to read source code.

Please donate $8.88 to my campaign. Any amount with 88 cents at the end is flagged for me to let me know that it came from someone who I guess is a lot like me. You'll also be entered into a drawing to win a prize and it will help save the world. Thank you.

I just can't get over how terrific and clever this whole thing is.

As you can probably tell, I'm fascinated by the upswing in Democratic voter registration in states across the country (Acknowledging all the usual caveats, of course). For me, the larger question is not how this effects the 2008 Election, but what a shift that numbers of the millions might mean in regards to the nation's the long term political trends.

Unsurprisingly, I was intrigued by this piece from Rhodes Cook, which attempts to take a wide-angle view of these changes (bonus points for lots of charts):

In the 29 states (plus the District of Columbia) where voter affiliation is kept by party, the Democrats have scored perceptible gains since the presidential election of 2004 while the Republicans have suffered significant losses. To be specific, the number of registered Democrats in party registration states has grown by nearly 700,000 since President George W. Bush was reelected in November 2004, while the total of registered Republicans has declined by almost 1 million.

Rhodes acknowledges that this shift is occurring in a pool of 96 million registered, partisan voters, so lets temper some enthusiasm here. But as I've written about before, some of those shifts are occurring in some significant places -- in PA, with a shift of million voters to the Democratic column, for example.

There are also some important states for Democrats (particularly legislators) -- OH, MI, VA, MN and WI -- which don't require voters to identify with a party. And I don't think it's too much to assume that similar movement toward the Democratic party is occurring in these states as well.

I'm in New Orleans for the National Conference of State Legislatures. If you're around and you'd like to chat, shoot me a line.

We'll be back with plenty of new content on Monday.

As the summer heats up and the thermometer rises, I thought it would be the perfect time to talk about how Democratic state legislators have stepped up to tackle a problem that – only a few years back – would not have been considered a state legislative issue.

States started to seriously address climate change in 2006 in California. In that year, the Democratic legislature passed the “California Global Warming Solutions Act,” sponsored by Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (a DLCC board member). Assembly Bill 32 passed the Assembly on August 31, 2006 on a 47-32 vote. It then passed the Senate on August 30, 2006 on a 23-14 vote and was approved by the governor on September 27, 2006. The bill requires that, by 2020, California’s greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to 1990s levels.

California’s landmark legislation in 2006 led to a number of successes nationwide in 2007.

Just a year after California’s success, the Democratically controlled Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 6001. This bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Craig Pridemore, establishes the following goals: by 2020, reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels; by 2035, reduce overall GHG emissions in the state to 25 percent below 1990 levels; and by 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels, or 70 percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The governor signed the bill on May 3, 2007.

That same year, the Democratically-controlled Oregon legislature passed HB 3543. The goals of Oregon’s bill are to achieve the following reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: by 2010, arrest the growth of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; by 2020, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are 10 percent below 1990 levels; and, by 2050, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are at least 75 percent below 1990 levels. The governor signed the bill on August 7, 2007.

The Iowa Democratic legislature passed Senate File 485 in 2007. SF 485 addresses power-plant greenhouse gas emissions by creating a greenhouse gas inventory to collect data on greenhouse gas production; by creating a greenhouse gas registry for tracking, and by creating the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council to analyze the possibility of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2050. On April 23, 2007, SF 485 passed the Senate 30-19, and, on April 18, 2007, the bill passed the House 66-32. On April 27, 2007, SF 485 was signed by the governor.

In 2007, the Democratically-controlled legislature in Minnesota passed Senate File 145, the “Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 and Omnibus Energy Policy Bill.” This bill -- sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bill Hilty and Democratic Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon -- contains the Global Warming Mitigation Act of 2007. The goal of this bill is to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors producing those emissions to a level at least 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015, to a level at least 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and to a level at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The governor approved the bill on May 25, 2007.

Also in 2007, the Democratically controlled New Jersey legislature passed Assembly Bill 3301. The bills sponsors include Democratic Assemblypersons Linda Stender, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, Reed Gusciora, Linda R. Greenstein, and John F. McKeon and Democratic Sens. Barbara Buono, and Bob Smith. Assembly Bill 3301 establishes a greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to limit the level of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generated outside the state but consumed in the state, to the 1990 level or below, of those emissions by the year 2020, and to reduce those emissions to 80% below the 2006 level by the year 2050. The real strength of this bill is that it mandates drastic reductions by 2050. According to the Washington Post (July 6, 2007), “U.S. states have taken action on their own and in regional groups because the federal government has not yet passed mandatory regulations on emissions.” This story notes that the New Jersey law is tougher than California’s 2006 law because the NJ law contains “hard,” “enforceable” mandates – whereas the CA law only contains targets. The bill was signed by the governor on July 6, 2007.

Democratic legislators are continuing to fight for the environment through legislation on “green jobs,” “green buildings,” and renewable energy standards. For a good overview of state legislative action on environmental issues, be sure to check out the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

In Nevada, Republicans control the state senate by a single vote. They also, apparently, don't have much to be excited about as a party. Citing lack of interest, GOP leaders in the state were forced to cancel their state convention and hold a conference call instead:

The state party broke up its original convention in April when supporters of Ron Paul hijacked the proceedings and tried to elect delegates for their candidate to the national GOP convention in September. Party officials tried to reconvene on July 26, but they needed a quorum of 675 and received only 300 RSVPs, according to local reports.

Here's to hoping that Republican supporters decide to stay home on Election Day, too.

In this interconnected world of ours, there are few better ways to draw attention to something than to protest its existence. Unfortunately for him and his state, I don't think Republican State Sen. David Thomas of South Carolina understands that.

Earlier this year, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism of his state agreed to participate in an advertising campaign to promote South Carolina to gay European tourists. Similar ads were sponsored by the city governments of Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C.

The advertisements were timed for London’s Gay Pride Week, which ended Saturday. The posters touted the attractions of the state to gay tourists, including its "gay beaches" and its Civil War-era plantations.

Sen. Thomas found out about the ad when he was contacted by the SC blog Palmetto Scoop. He called for an audit of the state's tourism advertising budget and told the blog this:

"South Carolinians will be irate when they learn their hard earned tax dollars are being spent to advertise our state as 'so gay'...This campaign goes against our core values."

A Google search for the phrase, 'Sen. David Thomas "So Gay" ' now returns about 108,000 results. Because of him, copies and text from the advertisement have run alongside coverage from Time and Newsweek, and papers from all over the country and the world.

Maybe that's exactly what Thomas intended, but here's the thing. Prior to this kerfuffle, I had no idea that South Carolina even had gay beaches.

And more importantly, an advertisement designed to improve the state's tourism industry will now have the opposite effect. In tough economic times, you gotta think that's a little foolish.

It’s not easy being a first-time candidate running against an incumbent. Especially if you are a Democrat campaigning in Kansas. To be successful, you need to have something going for you -- even if that’s just the drive to outwork your opponent every day.

But it really does pay to be smart.

Sean Tevis is an information architect from Olathe, Kansas. He’s running against Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, a deeply conservative Republican (even by Sunflower State standards), and apparently, he's got polling showing him running three points back.

He’s also a geek.

Faced with the challenge of raising the $26,000 it will take to make this stage of the race competitive, Tevis found a brilliant, clever way to tell his story and in doing so has captured the imagination of a certain part of the Internet.

Writing in the style of xkcd (a web comic read by the geekiest of geeks), Tevis laid out his reasons for running and asked for 3,000 people to contribute $8.34 to his campaign. And then the Internets responded.

His appeal was picked up by BoingBoing -- an incredibly popular geek culture blog -- and promoted thousands of times by news aggregators Digg and Reddit. All the traffic overwhelmed the servers hosting his website, but the donations kept pouring in.

By 9:30 on Monday morning, 5,298 people had given to his campaign. Previously (as Tevis notes in his comic), no state rep campaign in Kansas had ever attracted even 650 donors, and more remarkable still, Tevis lives in a district where just 6,327 people voted in the last election.

Obviously the specifics of Tevis' story can't necessarily be repeated (no way that every candidate will be able to finance her campaign with a clever comic strip), but there's a whole lot to be said for his creativity.

This is the Internet -- a place where leaders can connect with thousands of passionate potential supporters...if the campaign can find a way to stand out.

(cross posted at TDS)

On Friday, about the same time that Megan was breaking down the National Popular Vote on this site, I was listening to a panel attempting to do the same at Netroots Nation. The guy sitting behind me was Matt Yglesias (who I read constantly and have linked to before).

He has more to say about the issue here and here.

Point being there are a ton of really good resources out there if you're interested in the NPV movement.

There has been a lot of talk in the office about the NCSL Legislative Summit next week, and one event that caught my attention was a breakfast to discuss the National Popular Vote movement. I am intrigued by this legislation, so for my second DLCC blog post, I thought I’d try to write a little more about it.

The National Popular Vote bill would award all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This in turn would nationalize the race for the presidency and give a voice to the citizens who do not reside in battleground states (accounting for about two thirds of all voters) and are ignored under the current system.

I write about it here because this movement is one that is being advanced completely by the nation’s legislatures.

Last week the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed legislation to become a member of The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by the National Popular Vote. The bill won by a 117-36 vote. Massachusetts is the 5th state to pass such legislation joining Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii. These states represent 19 percent of the 270 votes needed to activate the law and elect a president.

Legislation to change to a popular vote system has been introduced in 45 states and is making great progress in a majority of them. This bill currently has 439 sponsors at the state level.

For a much more detailed description of the movement, please visit the National Popular Vote website: nationalpopularvote.com

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

I'm sitting in an event for the Texas candidates here at Netroots Nation, and two great legislative candidates are sitting on the panel:

Joe Jaworski is a running for the 11th Senate District. He previously served as a member of the Galveston City Council, where he was mayor pro-tem in his last term. On Tuesday, he announced that he had raised more than $801,000 from 1,267 individual contributors so far in this campaign. Jaworski's campaign reports district has the highest Democratic performance of any Republican-held district in the state.

Sherrie Matula is running for House District 129. She is an educator and community activist who ran a very strong campaign for the same seat in 2006. On Wednesday, she announced that she had raised nearly $127,000, leaving her with more cash on hand than her GOP opponent, who is the incumbent. Her campaign is also running a very successful field operation -- she has knocked on more than 2,000 doors since June 1.

On Monday, I wrote about Democrats taking the lead on state legislation to promote children’s health through nutrition and physical-education legislation. Today, I would like to touch upon three more crucial issues in children’s health care: insurance coverage for autism, getting rid of toxic toys, and second-hand smoke in cars.

COVERAGE FOR AUTISM

On July 14, the Chicago Sun Times ran a story about another key children’s health care issue for which Democrats are fighting. Illinois Democratic Gov. Blagojevich added language to House Bill 4225 to create landmark legislation, making his state provide the most comprehensive autism coverage in the nation.

According to the organization Autism Speaks, one in 150 children is diagnosed with autism; a new case is diagnosed almost every 20 minutes; and it is the fastest-growing serious developmental disability in the country.

A recent story in Stateline provides a great overview of state laws on insurance coverage for autism. According to the piece, 12 states already require insurance coverage for autism, one state has passed legislation this year, and 12 states have legislation pending.

In Wisconsin, Democrats were blocked in their efforts to pass an autism bill. Democratic Rep. Amy Sue Vruwink wrote a newspaper column about how – after passing the Senate – SB 178 by Democratic Sen. Judy Robson (and co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Russ Decker, among others), died in the Assembly. According to a story in the Daily Cardinal, the Autism Society of Wisconsin supported Democratic SB 178 over Republican AB 901.

In Oklahoma, Democrats were also blocked in their efforts to pass an autism bill. There have been at least 3 attempts this session to pass an autism insurance bill. SB 1537, written by Democratic Sen. Jay Paul Gumm and dubbed “Nick’s Law, did not even make it out of committee. HB 2531, which would require insurance coverage for autism, passed the Senate on a 30-18 vote, but -- despite the pleas of parents of autistic children -- House Republican leadership refused to hear the bill. SB 2118, another attempt to pass insurance coverage for autism, sailed through the Senate, but died in a House committee.

TOXIC TOYS

In Washington, Democratic Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson authored HB 2647, the “Children’s Safe Products Act of 2008,” which bans 3 toxins from children’s toys: lead, cadmium, and phthalates. This bill was signed by the governor on March 13.

In California, AB 1108 (2007) -- the “California Toxic Toys Bill” – was sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman Fiona Ma and signed by the governor on October 14, 2007.

In New Jersey, Democratic Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein and Democratic Sen. Loretta Weinberg have joined the fight for safe children’s toys this year with their introduction of bills for the “Toxic-free Children's Products Act” – AB 2332 and SB 1428.

In Maine, Rep. Hannah Pingree authored LD 2048, “An Act to Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products,” which was signed by the governor on April 17, 2008.

In MARYLAND, Democratic Delegate James Hubbard sponsored HB 62, which prohibits children’s products containing lead. It was signed by the governor on May 13.

BANNING SMOKING IN AUTOMOBILES WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT

Democrats are also going after adults who smoke in vehicles when children are passengers in those cars. For an excellent overview of state legislation through 2007, take a look at another story in Stateline. In 2008, we see the Democratically controlled legislatures in Maine and Washington State defending children’s health and safety in this area.

In Maine, LD 2012 -- which is a primary-offense prohibition smoking in a motor vehicle when a person under 16 years of age is present in that vehicle -- was signed by the governor on April 10, 2008. Democratic Rep. Patricia Blanchette sponsored a state-wide ban bill modeled on an ordinance in her town of Bangor, which protects children up to age 18. In the end, Blanchette’s version lost out to a Republican version which lowered the age from 18 to 16.

In Washington, HB 2519 (sponsored by Democratic Rep. Shay Schual-Berke) and SB 6287 (sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Marr) both ban smoking in cars with children inside. The House bill would cover children under 18, and the Senate version would include children under 14. Both bills make the violation a secondary offense. While neither bill made it into law this session, future success is very likely since the bills were supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and state law-enforcement agencies, troopers, and firefighters.

Bright and early tomorrow morning, I will be heading to Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas with the DLCC's Executive Director Michael Sargeant. We would love to connect with anyone who is interested in chatting (particularly those who want to talk about state legislatures). Just shoot me a line at compton [at] dlcc.org and let me know if you want meet up.

My Left Nutmeg -- a terrific blog for all things Connecticut -- reviewed DLCCWeb this week:

For many campaigns, technical knowledge and the cost of Web design consultants are barriers.

Now that other national committee, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) has stepped into the void with DLCCWeb, a service aimed at making it easy and cheap for state legislative candidates to have a professional-looking and powerful online presence. For $40 per month and no start up fees, any Democratic candidate can get:

• Web site hosting, including a content editor (no HTML knowledge required), use of prebuilt templates or customized designs, and a blog feature;
• An online database that enables campaigns to import or export lists of supporters;
• Unlimited e-mail blasts to supporters, with the ability to segment and target the list;
• Three e-mail accounts; and
• An event registration tool.

While I'm not necessarily endorsing this over other services, it is a good example of a party committee stepping up to help establish an important and inexpensive infrastructural tool for a huge number of candidates.

Connecticut is in fact one of the states where candidates are using this service to power their campaigns online. I can think of two pretty good examples:

Rep. Deb Heinrich is using DLCCWeb to run for reelection. Through her website, she is posting her news clips, organizing events, and asking for volunteers.

George Colli is running for state senate. He is writing a blog, sharing his endorsements, and distributing his press releases. Collli is also using his website to connect supporters to social networking like Facebook and YouTube.

If you see other mentions of DLCCWeb online, shoot me a line or post a comment. I really appreciate the feedback (even if it's suggestions for how to improve the service).

Sunday brought news of yet another state (Florida) where Democrats are banking new voters at a serious clip:

Democratic voters have out-registered Republicans by a nearly 7-to-1 margin since January.

State totals show Democrats gained a net of 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the GOP.

As I've said before, new voters flocking to our party is definitely a good thing. Even more so when it's a state like Florida, which is hard to top in terms of political significance in recent history.

But I want to temper expectations a bit. For one, as the Orlando Sentinel reports:

In a state with 10.45 million voters, the new figures didn't significantly change the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans; the state is still roughly 41 percent Democrat and 37 percent registered Republican, with most of the rest No Party Affiliation.

For another, new voters won't necessarily have a huge impact -- at least when it comes to our legislative races. There might not be a state in the country with a worse map in terms of districts. Democrats picked up 7 seats in the lower chamber last cycle, and we're still down 43/76. Even another unqualified victory like this in November will leave us seriously behind.

That doesn't mean this news isn't welcome or encouraging. It just means we still have a long way to go before a real Democratic agenda gets any traction in the state.

One of the most interesting parts of my job as research director of the DLCC is watching the appearance of state legislation on issues that were previously not on the state legislative agenda in earlier sessions. When California passed innovative, landmark legislation in 2006 on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, many other states began emulating this legislation in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

One relatively recent emerging issue is in the area of health care. We all know about the unfortunate reputation of the United States as being a nation of overweight adults. But, increasingly both the news and state legislative agendas have focused on the equally -– if not more -– startling figures on overweight children.

On the Thursday, July 10, editorial page of the New York Times, the newspaper’s editors expressed shock at the recent recommendation issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics that some children as young as 8 years old should be taking cholesterol-reducing statin drugs because of the poor nutrition and exercise habits of many of America’s children.

The Department of Human Services’ Center for Disease Control and Prevention has a wonderful “Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity State Legislative Database” website that allows one to search a database of state legislation to improve children’s health. One can search topics such as physical education legislation across all states over numerous years. According to the site, 52 bills on children’s physical education were introduced in 2008 in state legislatures across the nation.

While Democrats have always been the leaders on traditional healthcare issues such as expanding children’s health insurance, we are now adding innovative exercise and nutrition legislation to our list of accomplishments on behalf of American children. We see Democrats taking the lead on this children’s health issue across the country—including states like Oregon, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Maryland.

In OREGON, Democrats are tackling the nutrition issue. On the Oregon House Democrats website, you can read about an innovative nutrition program known as farm-to-table or farm-to-school. HB 3601 establishes the Oregon Farm-to-School and School Garden Program to promote nutrition education and wellness in Oregon’s schools. It was signed by the governor on March 11.

In OKLAHOMA, Democratic Senator Mary Easley was a sponsor of SB 1186, which doubles the requirement for physical activity from 60 minutes to 120 minutes a week. The bill was signed by the governor on May 5.

In VIRGINIA, Democratic Senator Janet Howell introduced SB 61 -- a bill that requires the Department of Education to develop a database of best practices for nutrition and physical education. The bill was signed by the governor on March 5.

In MARYLAND, Democratic Senator David Harrington authored SB 955, to study tougher physical education requirements for K-12 to reduce childhood obesity. The governor signed this bill on May 13.

Because of the need for both better nutrition and increased physical activity in combating high cholesterol at all ages, these laws represent a key step towards improving children’s health.

As the research director at the DLCC, I have seen many bills on drivers, cell phones, and text-messaging introduced over the past several years in legislatures nationwide. We have all read news stories about tragic accidents with possible connections to cell-phone use, and we could all share anecdotes about distracted drivers we have seen.

But as laws went into effect at the beginning of this month in California and Washington State, I thought it might be interesting to start to get a big picture of legislation nationwide. (My goal is to start providing legislation overviews like this semi-regularly).

On July 1, 2008, California and Washington State joined three other states (Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York) and the District of Columbia in banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, all of these laws -- except for Washington State’s -- are “primary enforcement” laws (meaning that they can be the sole reason for being pulled over). Also according to the GHSA, only four states (Alaska, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington) ban text-messaging, and 17 states as well as the District of Columbia have laws specifically restricting young drivers. The most interesting figure compiled by the GHSA is that there is not a single state that bans both hand-held and hands-free cell phone use for every driver -- not one.

There is a story in Tuesday’s New York Times about a second California law prohibiting motorists under the age of 18 from using both hand-held and hands-free cell phones. Thirteen other states have similar under-18 laws.

According to a recent story in USA Today, some researchers believe that it is the fact that one speaker (the driver) can see traffic and one (the person on the other end of the phone) cannot that causes a four-fold increase in crashes with injuries (a figure from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).

Of course, the real question is whether a hands-free requirement really solves the distracted-driver problem. A spokesman for the GHSA argues that it does not.

Although there are still many unanswered questions about what kinds of laws really make drivers more focused and a larger philosophical debate about individual freedoms versus public safety, the popularity of such laws is strong. According to USA Today, Hawaii and Massachusetts are considering new legislation.

As we near the end of the week, I thought I'd post this fun story from Maryland:

Bypassing their Annapolis offices, members of the House Ways and Means Committee drove down to the new National Harbor waterfront city in Prince George’s County on Tuesday.

The unusual site visit — the group only makes about three a year — gave members a chance to stroll along the new $5 billion development being built on the shores of the Potomac River. National Harbor, which opened in April, includes an $800 million Gaylord hotel and convention center and a waterfront shopping village surrounded by towering condos.

While a site visit might seem like a unconventional use of time, members of the committee were able to get a look at the development's infrastructure needs in person. Ways and Means handles much of the state's transportation funding requests.

This probably goes without saying, but a development like this has the potential to add significant revenue to the state's economy.

Going into November, Democrats in Wisconsin need to pick up three seats in the state assembly to control the chamber. That might have changed yesterday afternoon.

The deadline for submitting nomination papers was set for six o'clock, and Rep. Jeff Wood -- a Republican -- filed to run as an Independent. If he wins his election (and right now, he doesn't face an opponent from either major party), he will caucus with the Democrats. From the local coverage:

At the state level, Wood has a history of splitting from his party on some votes, the most prominent example coming last year when he was the lone Republican to vote against the Assembly Republicans' state budget proposal. He argued that it was more of a partisan gimmick than a serious budget.

Wood, a former member of the Libertarian Party of the Chippewa Valley, also believes the Republican Party has closed ranks and moved away from its more inclusive "big tent" philosophy of the 1990s.

He considers himself a case in point, maintaining he has been blacklisted to a degree by GOP leaders for not always voting the party line.

An example of the payback, he said, came when he asked to be taken off the Assembly Workforce Development Committee but instead was named its chairman. Then party leaders sent almost no bills to the panel.

"If there's not room for disagreement in this party, then there's not room for me," Wood said.

Under Wisconsin state law, Republicans still have one opportunity to mount a challenge against Woods by attracting enough write-in votes for a new candidate in the September primary. But doing that requires committing resources and organizing that the GOP wasn't anticipating.

No matter what, Democrats are still in a better situation today than they were yesterday.

I admire Stateline a lot. I read it every day and link to it often.

But I'm particularly impressed by this project.

The Stateline staff has put together a very good, state-by-state breakdown of the action resulting from the year's legislative sessions across the country. So far, this collection only covers the statehouses where the lawmakers have adjourned, but writers are continuing to add new states as more sessions end.

If you're at all interested in what's happening in Alaska:

In a special session in June, lawmakers traveled from Juneau to Fairbanks and a half dozen small communities to learn more about the proposed pipeline – the biggest construction project in North America – and the environmental and economic effects it would have on the state.

Or Maryland:

[T]he Democratic-led legislature grabbed national headlines with some of the toughest new mortgage banking laws in the country. The state also expanded its DNA sampling program, created a tax surcharge for millionaires and ordered the state’s largest electric utility to retroactively lower its rates and issue refunds.

Or Washington:

Education was a priority. Teachers received pay raises, and all-day kindergarten was expanded. Colleges and universities also received help, with lawmakers increasing funding for a program meant to hire top-quality researchers to the state.

Or anywhere in between, I recommend it.

As long as these stories keep getting written, I'm going to keep noting them here:

Democrats now have a 55,560-voter lead over the Republicans in a state that was dead even a presidential cycle ago.

(via)

Sam Stein -- writing for the Huffington Post -- has put together a very good look ahead to the 2010 election cycle. He reports that:

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010. Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

This isn't the first story we've seen along these lines. Both parties recognize the potential of the election two years from now, and campaign organizations are gearing up in preparation.

That includes this campaign committee:

[I]n almost every state, the legislative chambers will have a say into how the congressional districts are re-drawn. And in this regard the governor's power is limited. Oftentimes, in fact, redistricting plans get sent to state courts to adjudicate disagreements.

In 2010, there will be more than 1,150 state senate races and more than 4,950 state house races held nationwide. Here, too, Democrats and Republicans are cognizant of any edge.

"A flip of 50 state seats in key chambers could mean a gain -- or a loss -- of 15 Democratic Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting," said Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. "We need to continue winning statehouses so that we can be at the table when these district lines are drawn."

The quote from my boss is a good reminder of the importance of the work we do. Control of the nation's legislatures have long-term consequences outside the boundaries of any individual state. If Republicans are going to throw all their resources into the 2010 election, we need to be prepared to defend our chambers and pick up those where the GOP is vulnerable.

Last night, I read a piece on MyDD which made me smile.

In her journal, a blogger named desmoinesdem carefully laid out five reasons for supporting Democratic legislative candidates in the fall. She's spot on. (And by the way, the candidate she mentions first -- Jerry Sullivan -- is putting DLCCWeb to good use. Check it out).

I encourage you to read her entire post, but I want to draw attention to one particular argument she makes:

You may think that Obama will give down-ticket candidates all the help they need in November. But depending on where you live, the Obama campaign may not be putting its GOTV muscle in the crucial legislative districts.

I was very concerned to learn a few days ago that the Iowa Democratic Party has in effect shut down its "coordinated campaign" and transferred control over GOTV statewide to the Obama campaign.

What's best for maximizing Obama's presidential vote is not necessarily what's best for maximizing the number of Democrats elected to the state legislature.

This is great point that is often missed in national political analysis. Even by organizing an unprecedented ground game, the national ticket might not help some of our candidates. And in those places, we're going to depend on volunteers and activists (like desmoinesdem) to contribute their time knocking on doors and making calls in order to win legislative races.

Our office is closed in celebration of Independence Day, so I've got no legislative news to share. But I do want to relate a different kind of story altogether that I enjoyed today:

After years of searching, archaeologists have identified and excavated the boyhood home of George Washington, site of such legendary -- if perhaps apocryphal -- events as chopping down the cherry tree and throwing a coin across the Rappahannock River.

That's a fantastic piece of news for American cultural heritage on the 232nd anniversary of our birth as a nation.

God save our American states.

In Michigan, there are a lot of regulations restricting the types of people who are allowed to vote absentee:

[It] is limited to those 60 and older, or anyone who will be out of town on Election Day, is in jail, has religious reasons for not attending the polls or needs assistance at the polls.

Democratic lawmakers have sponsored legislation to open up the process and make it available to any citizen who requests a ballot by mail, for any reason. And of course, the Republicans have blocked the bill, claiming that they are scared of 'voter fraud.'

Democrats rallied at the state Capitol yesterday, protesting the delay. But the GOP has a four-seat majority in the upper chamber, which of course, makes passage of the legislation unlikely.

The Michigan Senate isn't on the ballot this fall, but in 2010, this chamber is definitely going to be on on our target list.

This issue is a perfect example of why. I don't need to launch into a lecture about civic responsibility and participatory democracy 12 hours before Independence Day.

But I will say this -- Voting rights are a fundamental difference between our party and the other guys. We try to make the process as open as possible, and they try to close it down.

Putting aside all other considerations, that's reason enough for me to vote Democratic year in and year out.

The guys at Wired for Change have put together a little introductory video for DLCCWeb. I'm a fan:

Chris Kromm at Facing South posts some more exciting news about Democratic voter registration in Georgia and North Carolina:

Georgia has grown the most: an astounding 300,000 new voters have been added to the rolls since January 2008, putting the total number of active registrants at 4.7 million […]

According to N.C. State Board of Election statistics, just over 203,000 new voters have registered since January.

Like Georgia, new registrations have favored Democratic, independent and African-American voters. African-American voters have gone from 20.1% to 20.7% of the N.C. electorate in 2008. By party, Democrats have gone from 44.8% to 45.3%, and unaffiliated voters from 20.9% to 21.4% since January.

Those gains have been at the expense of Republicans, who went from being 34.3% of N.C. voters in January to 33.3% by the end of June -- a one-point drop.

This comes on the heels of a Democratic voter registration drive in Louisiana, which completely overwhelmed the state board of elections.

This is obviously only half the battle (still gotta get registered voters to the polls on Election Day) but these reports are still unreservedly good news.

It occurs to me that I've never done a formal introduction of DLCCWeb. Allow me to remedy that.

As you may have figured out already from some of our previous posts, DLCCWeb is a resource that we have developed with Wired for Change that makes it easy and affordable to campaign online. Democratic legislative candidates can use it to create a professionally designed web site and access powerful online advocacy tools.

We've made it easy for individual candidates to customize and edit their own web sites no matter how comfortable they are with technology and the Internet. We provide a full selection of website templates, headers, and color schemes. Campaigns can publish a blog, set up photo gallery, or publish an issue survey with the click of a mouse. All the content can be altered online using a very simple editor tool, so no additional software or technical expertise of HTML is required.

Again, as I've said before, more than 200 of our candidates in races in 30 states are using DLCCWeb to power their campaigns.

As this election cycle unfolds, we'll have a lot more to say about this resource and the candidates who are using it.

If you have a minute, check it out, and let us know what you think.

The legislative races in Oregon haven’t gotten a lot of attention because Democrats already control both chambers. That said, a switch of just one seat would leave the Oregon House of Representatives tied and two seats would give the Republicans control. The chamber is an important one to defend.

But there’s a real chance we might be able to do more than that on Election Day.

Leaders in the state are looking to pick up as many as 5 seats. That in turn would give Democrats a super-majority, allowing us to pass legislation without the support of even a single Republican.

Even as we fight for chamber control around the country, it’s important to remember states like this one.

A super-majority would guarantee that a Democratic agenda for governing gets serious traction next session, and that’s a goal worth fighting for.