A little over a week ago, Tracy Warner of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette got a little taste of why Indiana Democrats are optimistic they can hold the narrowly-divided State House this year (one of the Democratic Party’s top redistricting priorities this election cycle):

More Indiana legislative districts should be like House District 31, which includes all of Blackford County and much of Grant County.

The district is split between Republicans and Democrats, and winning for either party is far from a sure thing.

Last weekend, visiting my hometown of Hartford City, I saw incumbent Democratic state Rep. Joe Pearson going door-to-door in the 90-degree-plus heat, seeking to win votes and, perhaps more importantly, encourage his supporters to make sure they cast ballots Nov. 2.

And that, in a nutshell, is the most basic way to win a campaign: by going out, meeting people in their communities, and asking them in person what issues are important and what they think should be done.

Last cycle, Rep. Pearson defeated an incumbent Republican by 468 votes out of more than 20,000 cast, but both parties are expecting much lower turnout this year because it’s a mid-term election cycle.

That means if Rep. Pearson goes out knocking every other day when the legislature’s out of session – in 90 degree heat or otherwise – he can personally speak to a huge portion of the people who will cast votes on Election Day. And with accurate data and targeting, he can talk to an even larger portion of the Democrats and persuadable Republicans and Independents he needs to win this fall.

Add in Rep. Pearson’s friends, family members, and local Democratic volunteers helping him reach out to potential voters, and it becomes clear how a well-run field program and a hard-working candidate can make the difference, even against a big-money smear campaign funded by the Republicans.

Progressives are definitely starting to ratchet up the talk about the importance of redistricting to the long-term wellbeing of the Democratic Party.

But conservatives get it, too. As David Bass asserts in yesterday’s American Spectator,

The most far-reaching effect of the 2010 midterm elections could be felt at the state level. By casting their ballots in … hundreds of legislative races, voters will decide whether Democrats or Republicans dominate the redrawing of state and federal political borders for the new decade -- a process known as redistricting. And the results could be even more far-reaching for Democrats than the outcome of the midterm elections.

That's not hyperbole. Given the country's closely divided electorate, the political fortunes of each party chiefly hinge on how redistricting pans out. That, in turn, hinges on how well Democrats and Republicans fare at the state level. The reason: in most states, legislators are responsible for creating … redistricting plans that reflect population shifts documented in the census.
…
The hands that redraw district borders are some of the most powerful in politics. Aside from a handful of state and federal requirements, lawmakers can finagle district lines however they choose. Legislative and congressional districts must be contiguous -- meaning all parts touch and none are detached -- and each must have an equal number of residents. The federal Voting Rights Act also ties legislators' hands by requiring them to draw some districts to grant minorities greater electoral power.

Beyond that, the majority party has a wide degree of latitude and the capacity to shut out the minority from the process.

Bass nailed it. The hands that redraw district borders are some of the most powerful in politics. And the majority of the people with those “hands” are in-cycle and face state legislative elections this fall.

Bass goes on to pay Democrats a little compliment, though, echoing a point made by Politico’s Ken Vogel several weeks ago:

Democrats appear to have a better redistricting apparatus on the ground to prime for inevitable legal challenges… Liberals don't want a repeat of the last round of redistricting, which led the GOP to historic gains in the 2002 midterms.

He’s right—we don’t. The 2001 Republican redistricting helped the GOP buck the trend of the sitting President’s party losing seats in Congress in the 2002 midterm elections.

But we remembered. And we learned. And we’re girding for the fight of our political lives. Redistricting is too important to the future of the Democratic Party and progressive policies to do any less.

Martin Finucane of the Boston Globe reports that supporters of a state-by-state effort to decide presidential elections based on the popular vote – rather than by Electoral College math – have notched another victory:

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.

That “tried and true” system Tisei refers to is responsible for the election of George W. Bush in 2000 – despite his losing the national popular vote. President Bush, who left America with two wars, a financial crisis, an economy in free-fall, and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, has already gone down in history as one of the worst presidents in history.

America would have been much better off, at least in this instance, if the presidential electoral system reflected the national will of the people in all cases.

Perhaps that’s why the five other states which already have such legislation are all heavily Democratic, with Democratically-controlled legislatures. Nevertheless, the laws in all six states (Governor Patrick has suggested he will sign the Massachusetts bill) will remain dormant until states accounting for 270 electoral votes pass similar legislation.

The Constitution establishes the Electoral College and describes how electors are to be apportioned, but the selection of electors is delegated to the state legislatures, all of which have since passed laws tying their Electoral College votes to the presidential election results in their states.

The Netroots Nation 2010 conference provided a great opportunity to explain to the progressive online community, as well as some more “traditional” media outlets, what’s truly at stake in this fall’s state legislative elections.

As Executive Director Michael Sargeant put it to Charlie Mahtesian of Politico,

“With redistricting coming up, the future of the Democratic Party will largely be decided upon the results of the elections this November.”

Paul Rosenberg of Open Left certainly understood the long-term implications of this fall’s elections and the subsequent redistricting:

Arguably the most important, most overlooked aspect of the upcoming elections is the control of state legislatures, who play a crucial role in redistricting for next decades. I'll be writing more about this in the days and weeks ahead. But for now, I'll just say that it's typical of the broader need to focus on institutional forms of power. We can tell if we're making real progress when we stop being obsessively focused on the shiny surface of things, and instead find ourselves naturally at home with the deeper structures that shape the moment-by-moment flow, even if they do not determine the exact nature of moment-by-moment events.

MSNBC.com’s Tom Curry noted that, while we welcome opportunities to work together, the DLCC is unwilling to tip its hand in terms of strategy.

Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, who spoke at a Netroots Nation panel discussion Friday, pointed to Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, and Ohio as battleground states for state legislative races.
…
One Netroots Nation attendee asked Sargeant if he could give activists a list of the ten seats in each state that could tip the balance in each legislature from Democrat to Republican.

“State bloggers and people interested in financing these campaigns could then have those targeted seats ready to go -- especially when we have an infrastructure on line that can really rally people at a moment’s notice,” he told Sargeant.

But Sargeant was unwilling to reveal the entire DLCC target list.

“There’s so little news coverage of a lot of these campaigns,” he noted, and in some cases he prefers to keep it that way. He doesn’t want publicity for sleeper races where Democrats have a chance to pick up a seat.

“We’re going to spend, with your help, a lot of money and use a lot of resources to win these races – but we don’t want the Republicans to actually notice,” he said. “We have to work through with our leaders with what they’re comfortable actually talking about,” he told the Netroots Nation questioner.

“Both sides – Democratic and Republican – don’t want the other side to know all their strategies,” Sargeant told me later. “I may have a target list for what races I think are important in Indiana, for example; I imagine my Republican counterpart would probably have a different list. Sometimes it’s very public which races overlap, and sometimes maybe there are a couple of sleeper races.”

The Netroots community is already an important part of the fight to win and maintain majorities in state legislatures. We were pleased to have the opportunity to meet so many great writers and reporters face-to-face, and we’re excited about working with progressive bloggers as we fight for “the future of the Democratic Party.”

Sum of Change and Five Steps Forward Media provided live streaming coverage of many of the panels and presentations at Netroots Nation last week.

Their coverage includes a complete video of our Redistricting Panel, which featured State Senator Steven Horsford, a DLCC Board Member and the Majority Leader of the Nevada Senate; Executive Director Bill Burke of the Foundation for the Future; and our own Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

You can watch the video below or at USTREAM:

We'd like to thank all of our participants for generously providing their time, and we'd also like to thank the Netroots community for helping us shine a light on this critically important issue.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 22, 2010

Contact: Carolyn Fiddler
202.556.1693
fiddler@dlcc.org

LAS VEGAS, NV- Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Executive Director Michael Sargeant today challenged progressive bloggers and activists gathered at Netroots Nation 2010 to focus the public's attention on redistricting and this fall’s state legislative elections. Sargeant noted that district lines defined by state legislatures across the county will define the next decade of American politics.

“The DLCC is excited to be sponsoring Netroots Nation for the third year in a row. This conference is a crucial event for the progressive movement every year,” said Sargeant. “As Democrats across the country gird for redistricting, the Netroots community’s role in shaping political thought is central to Democrats’ victories not only this fall, but also in the decade to come.“

Netroots attendees will visit the the Wired for Change/DLCC booth in the Exhibit Hall for information on redisricting, as well as to pick up keychain USB drives pre-loaded with a strategic presentation.

“Redistricting and the Fate of Progressive Politics explains what the stakes are in this year’s state legislative elections,” Sargeant explained. “Right now, Republicans will control the drawing of 106 congressional seats. If Republicans were to pick up just 10 key state legislative seats this fall, they will gerrymander 134 congressional districts for themselves. If the GOP pick up 55 key state legislative seats, they will draw 178 of the 435 congressional districts—178 districts designed to elect Republicans.

“On the other hand, if Democrats were to win 10 key state legislative seats in this fall’s elections, we will prevent the GOP from gerrymandering its way into an artificial majority that will affect congressional elections and politics for the next decade.“

In addition to the strategic presentation on the USB drive keychains, Sargeant and key DLCC staff will be meeting with bloggers and media figures to discuss the urgency of redistricting and the DLCC’s crucial role in the fight.

On Thursday evening, the DLCC is proud to present Nevada state Senate Majority Leader and DLCC Board member Steven Horsford as part of the opening keynote program. Senator Horsford will also participate in the redistricting panel (2010: Reapportionment, Redistricting, and the Republican “Plan” to Return to Power) on Friday morning at 10:30 a.m. with the DLCC’s Executive Director.

“We are eager to engage the conference in preserving progressive policies for the decade to come,” said Sargeant.

A redistricting nightmare has been averted (though it was never really in doubt). This past September, a federal lawsuit alleged that the limit of 435 Members of the House of Representatives was unconstitutional and that the House would have to expand to guarantee equal protection. Unsurprisingly, a U.S. District Court recently ruled against the plaintiffs.

The basic claim of the suit is that the guarantee of at least one House seat for every state, combined with an upper limit of 435 seats nation-wide, results in malapportioned districts that give some voters more power than others. Montana and Wyoming are the clearest examples – both are at-large states with only one district, but Montana has over 400,000 more residents.

The Supreme Court has already accepted this claim on the state legislative level, ruling in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that state legislative districts must be nearly equal in population (thus striking down state constitutions which guaranteed a minimum number of legislators for each county). But in order to rectify the malapportionment at the federal level, the House would have to expand to over 900 Members (or more).

The U.S. District court, in a lengthy, 36-page opinion, ruled against the plaintiffs in this case. But the decision relied in part on a nearly-forgotten piece of American history from the early days of our Constitution:

The decision says that the Constitution was almost amended in the 1790′s to provide for an ever-increasing size in the U.S. House. The proposed amendment to require that Congress constantly increase the size of the U.S. House passed in Congress and would have become part of the Constitution if one more state had ratified it. In effect, the recent decision says that the courts should not impose an idea that might have become part of the text of the Constitution itself, but did not become part of the Constitution.

This particular amendment, proposed as part of the original Bill of Rights, could have resulted in nearly 10,000 members of the U.S. House – which would make redistricting even more interesting than it is presently.

But with the decision of the Court, the United States will stay with 435 House members – for now. Unlike some later constitutional amendments that contained sunset clauses (i.e. which would not become law unless ratified by a certain date), early constitutional amendments did not. Which means the amendment guaranteeing a continually-growing Congress is still "active," in the sense that it could still be ratified if a few state legislatures one day take up the cause.

According to CNBC’s latest 50-state ranking of the best places for business growth, three of the top-five states for business have Democratic legislatures (Massachusetts, Colorado, and North Carolina), and a fourth is currently under split control (Virginia).

But unlike other rankings that view business-friendliness as a race to see which state can drown itself in a bathtub the quickest, CNBC ranked the full range of issues businesses consider when choosing to locate or expand – everything from public education to quality of life. And it’s no surprise that states with Democratic legislatures dominate many of these key issues:

• Overall: Democratic-controlled Massachusetts, Colorado, and North Carolina all ranked in the top five, along with Virginia (which is under split control). Only one Republican-controlled state made the top five.
  
  

• Education System: Republicans were shut out of this category – four of the top five (and nine of the top ten) states for education have Democratic legislatures. Pennsylvania, which was tied for fourth, is under split control.
  
  

• Technology and Innovation: This was the Democratic states’ second most consistent category (behind education). Again, four of the top five states are Democratically-controlled. But only 2 Republican-controlled states even made the top-fifteen.
  
  

• Access to Capital: All five of the top spots, and eight of the top ten, went to Democratic states, led by California. One split state, Virginia, and only one Republican state also made the top ten.
  
  

• Quality of Life: Four of the top five states, and eight of the top ten, were Democratically-controlled.

The trend from these rankings should be obvious: The states that are moving forward (by investing in technology and education, by making it easy to start businesses, and by continually improving the quality of life) are mostly states where Democrats set the agenda.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue their race to the bottom.

For nearly 70 years, New York Senate Republicans were riding high. Flush with cash and protected by a typically unassailable majority (save for the 1964 Democratic wave), GOP Senate candidates could always count on a high-powered, high-spending campaign apparatus to save their seats. Until now.

The Capitol recently got an inside look at that once-proud GOP operation and the difference from as recently as one cycle ago. The collapse is nothing short of breathtaking:

The special-interest money that once flowed has dried to a trickle. As of January, the Senate GOP had about one-fifth of the cash on hand as they did at the same point in 2008. (…)

When they were in the majority, the SRCC operated out of a luxury 20-story building with 9,000 square feet of floor space. In the minority, with the threat of Republican-eviscerating redistricting oblivion looming, a shoe-string operation to retake the majority is being run from the second floor of a modest three-story building a few minutes’ walk from the Capitol, about a third of the size of the old one.

With less than $1 million on hand as of January, [State Sen. Tom] Libous has cut SRCC spending to the bone, from $158,000 a month to $48,000. In 2008, Libous did not even know the name of everyone on the SRCC payroll. Now, because they can afford much fewer, Libous can run down the entire list of staff in 10 seconds (…)

Senate Republicans will also have to do without their secret, taxpayer-funded communications and research shops that employed dozens of people and cost millions of dollars before Democrats discovered it last February. And fundraising has also dried up with most of the traditionally progressive sources that previously had to play ball with the GOP Senate majority in order to have any hope of legislative success.

And without their usual hoards of cash, the statewide GOP Senate committee is finding it has far less control over individual campaigns. But the committee is still inserting itself into local primaries - going so far as to publicly trash one likely GOP nominee - which is causing even more headaches for the party:

After [Republican Sen. Vincent] Leibell retired, meanwhile, the SRCC stepped in to endorse Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy. She has also won the Conservative line. But these maneuvers have infuriated Assembly Member Greg Ball, who on paper would seem like a perfect candidate for Senate Republicans this year. He is a young Air Force veteran who has strong Tea Party support (…)

There is only one problem: Greg Ball.

“We think Greg Ball’s voting record is too erratic. We think his behavior is too erratic,” Libous said.

Ball said that he still holds out hope that the SRCC will see the writing on the wall and work to get Murphy off the Conservative line between now and November. But if Ball emerges from the primary without the Conservative line, Republicans could very well lose the seat, according to both Democratic and Republican strategists.

Of course, with 2010 shaping up to be a challenging climate for Democrats, no one is taking victory for granted. But in New York at least, Democrats have enough organizational advantages to feel confident.

The Family Research Council tried to make hay with our Legislative Priorities Survey, which showed (among other things) that over 80% of our readers and newsletter subscribers consider equal rights "somewhat" or "extremely" important. The FRC headline? "Homosexual Agenda is Low Priority—Even for Democrats." Huh?

They got there, of course, by conveniently forgetting about the 33% in the “somewhat” category. By that standard, this Pew Poll showing that only 48% of Republicans strongly oppose same-sex marriage “proves” that opposing equal rights is low priority for Republicans. (To be clear, the Pew survey was a scientifically constructed poll - ours was a non-scientific, self-selecting survey.)

Now, as anyone involved in politics will tell you, 80% of respondents calling an issue important is pretty close to monolithic. Not quite as monolithic or as intense as our education supporters (who are staring down the barrel at billions in school cuts and hundreds of thousands of laid-off teachers) or our job promotion supporters (because of the recession), but overall support for equal rights was in the same ballpark.

So the FRC's glee was more than a bit puzzling. But it did remind us of a Boston Globe article last week about a university experiment exploring what happens when political ideologues are presented with verifiable evidence that something they believe is false:

The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

"Backfiring" would certainly explain the Family Research Council. They saw a document showing equal rights to be wildly popular among the progressive base, and they thought it proved the opposite. What's more, the FRC is based in Washington, D.C., which approved civil marriage equality last year. Yet faced with such compelling, empirical evidence in his own backyard that equal rights shouldn’t be a big deal, the author of the FRC’s blog post continues to suggest that homosexuality should be considered a mental illness and that gays are “ten times more likely to molest children” than straight people. Both claims have been thoroughly discredited and represent bigotry, plain and simple.

Sorry, but when the DLCC wants scientific commentary, we’ll find someone whose boss didn’t give $82,500 to David Duke or give speeches before racist hate groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Should no one meeting those strict standards be available, we'll settle for someone with a strong enough grasp of basic arithmetic that they can add two percentages together.

Netroots Nation 2010 is right around the corner, and any readers who plan to attend should definitely join us for panel discussion of redistricting!

After this fall's elections, state lawmakers across the country will meet to draw new legislative districts. The congressional maps created after 2010 will dictate political realities for the next decade. Join the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee at Netroots Nation 2010 for a panel discussing the stakes involved in redistricting, the challenges Democrats are facing, and how progressives are organizing to prepare for the fight. Carolyn Fiddler, DLCC Communications Director, will moderate the panel discussion and interactive questioning.

Who:

Bill Burke, Executive Director, Foundation for the Future
The Hon. Steven Horsford, Nevada State Senate Majority Leader
Casey O'Shea, Executive Director, National Democratic Redistricting Trust
Michael Sargeant, Executive Director, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

What:

Panel discussion with analyses of the 2010 state legislative election outlook, how the election results will impact redistricting, and what redistricting means for the future of progressives.

When:

Friday, July 23, 2010
10:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

Where:

Rio Hotel & Casino
Miranda Room 3-4
Las Vegas, NV

A recent item in Governing magazine addressed the pivotal nature of this fall’s state legislative elections.

This fall's legislative elections -- the last before the start of a new once-every-decade redistricting process -- are unique... According to this author's estimates, more chambers are in play this year than in any cycle since at least 2002.

The piece goes on to discuss some of the challenges both parties are facing, but the more interesting emphasis is on the number of state legislative chambers that could change hands –- with control passing from Democrats to Republicans or vice versa -- this cycle.

But more important than the number of chambers in play is the impact that just a few shifts in control could have on the re-drawing of congressional district lines, and consequently, U.S. House races for the next ten years.

Consider the following.

Thirty-six states give their legislatures control over congressional redistricting (some states employ independent commissions or other measures). These 36 legislatures will draw the maps for (most likely, pending final Census results) 383 of the 435 congressional seats.

Democrats currently hold legislative majorities in 43 state House, Senate, or Assembly chambers with the authority to control congressional redistricting.

Democrats currently hold majorities in both legislative chambers in states that will (again, pending final Census results) draw maps for 200 congressional seats.

Democrats currently hold majorities in one of the two chambers that will draw maps for an additional 78 congressional seats.

Of the legislatures that will draw congressional district maps this year, 23 chambers in 17 states are within 5 seats of majority control flipping from one party to the other. These 17 state legislatures will draw 198 congressional districts.

If any doubts exist as to the relevance of this fall’s legislative elections, these numbers should dispel them handily and without equivocation. These state-level elections will influence the makeup of hundreds of congressional districts for the next ten years, and majorities in these key legislative chambers could be decided by only a handful of ballots in a handful of districts. (Case in point: Texas Republican State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown maintained majority control for the House Republicans in 2008 by winning a recount by 19 votes.)

This summer, the hot pundit talk is about whether or not Democrats will maintain control of the U.S. House after this fall’s elections.

But the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is bringing the real heat this cycle. The DLCC has labored tirelessly since the harsh redistricting of 2001 and has made solid gains in statehouses across the country. But we are by no means secure as we face the 2011 redistricting. Losing only a few key state legislative elections in November can cause Democrats to lose their seats at various redistricting tables next year. We never forget that as we work to support and build infrastructure for local campaigns around the country.

Welcome to the hottest game in town.

We asked for your opinion, and you responded -- loud and clear.

Thousands of you from across the country answered our call to participate in the DLCC's 2010 Legislative Priorities Survey.

Now that we have the results, we're ready to show Democratic state legislators nationwide what you -- our supporters -- value.

This report will be formally presented to the DLCC's Board of Directors, made up of prominent state legislative leaders from across the country, later this year.

But these are your priorities. We believe you should get the first look.

Click here for a sneak preview of the official survey report for our 2010 Legislative Priorities Survey.

Among other key findings, the economy and job creation are now the top legislative priority of our readers in every region of the country.

More than 60% of you agreed that states should pursue health care reform ideas that go beyond the new federal health care law.

And more than 80% of you agreed that protecting education from recessionary budget cuts is extremely important.

Download the complete report to see the full results for each issue, including comprehensive regional breakdowns.

Part of our mission at the DLCC is to make sure Democratic voters have a voice in their state legislatures, and we were honored to help so many of you make your voices heard.

Thank you for sharing your views and for everything you do to support the Democratic cause.

Sincerely,

Michael Sargeant
Executive Director
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

Minnesota and Virginia are two states where rapid suburban growth has reshaped statewide politics in the past decade – tugging both states from "safe" to "swing" status in presidential politics. But redistricting next year promises to reshape both states’ legislative politics as well, as suburbs leverage their decade of growth for additional Statehouse influence.

In Minnesota, suburban growth has centered around the outer suburbs of Minneapolis and St. Paul:

Minnesota State Demographer Tom Gillaspy expects that lawmakers will have to react to growth on the fringes of the Twin Cities metropolitan area by cramming more of the state’s 201 legislative districts in the outer suburbs and semi-rural areas that are situated just beyond the metro. Gillaspy refers to the area as “the doughnut.”

“The doughnut ring around the Twin Cities has been growing rapidly,” noted Gillaspy, “and much of the rest of the state outside of that has not grown as rapidly. The central cities and inner ring suburbs have not grown as rapidly. Some have declined.”

These “doughnut” areas were initially quite conservative, but they later helped fuel a Democratic surge in state legislative elections in 2006 and 2008.

Meanwhile, the suburbs of Northern Virginia continued their impressive growth this decade, which will probably pull several additional state legislative seats into their orbit during redistricting:

Fairfax has not had the highest rate of growth in the state during the 2000s -- that distinction goes to neighboring Loudoun County -- but the combined growth of Northern Virginia as a whole likely will have political implications during next year's redistricting process.

Loudoun, Prince William and Fairfax counties gained the most new residents of any jurisdictions in the state between 2000 and 2009, and the inner Northern Virginia suburbs of Arlington County and Alexandria also have continued to grow, according to Michael McDonald, an associate professor in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy think tank, and an expert on elections and redistricting.

Other areas of the state, particularly southwestern Virginia communities, such as Danville and Henry and Buchanan counties, have been losing residents.

Barack Obama performed better than his statewide average in all three of the fastest-growing counties, winning with margins ranging from 8% to 21%. Arlington and Alexandria both gave Obama more than 70% of their votes.

Even in the disappointing 2009 gubernatorial election, the Democratic nominee ran well ahead of his statewide average in Fairfax County, and he performed about at his average in Loudoun and Prince William. Democrats have shown continued strength in the area since then by winning two hotly contested special elections in Northern Virginia, one of which had significant implications for control of the State Senate.

These changes in Minnesota and Virginia will reshuffle the political deck in both states – suburban gains will be offset by losses in areas where the population shrunk or remained static. But regional divisions aside, the changes appear to favor Democrats.

We don’t get involved in governor’s races. That’s the Democratic Governors Association’s responsibility, while we focus exclusively on electing Democratic state legislators.

But one Democratic gubernatorial candidate is making his state’s Republican-controlled legislature an issue in his campaign, and he’s taking them to task for having (shall we say) the wrong priorities during this recession. According to the narrator in a new TV ad:

A governor can create jobs by selling the advantages of Georgia to firms looking for a home. But it’s hard for industry to take us seriously when the Legislature attempts to outlaw stem cell research, passes bills about microchips in the brain, and talks about seceding from the Union.

The new ad reminded us about the legislative debate surrounding one of the GOP's misplaced priorities – the microchip bill, which makes it a misdemeanor to implant a microchip in someone without their consent. And when we found the full story, we wondered how on earth we’d missed it the first time.

From a committee hearing about the microchip bill:

“I’m also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip,” the woman said. Slowly, she began to lead the assembled lawmakers down a path they didn’t want to take. (…)

She spoke of the “right to work without being tortured by co-workers who are activating these microchips by using their cell phones and other electronic devices.”

She continued. “Microchips are like little beepers. Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city. All done without your permission,” she said.

It was not funny, and no one laughed.

“Ma’am, did you say you have a microchip?” asked state Rep. Tom Weldon (R-Ringgold).

“Yes, I do. This microchip was put in my vaginal-rectum area,” she replied. [Republican State Rep. Ed] Setzler, the sponsoring lawmaker, sat next to the witness – his head bowed.

One can only hope that the woman was playing some elaborate, Candid-Camera-style joke on the legislators. Nobody thought so at the time, and amazingly, the Republican-controlled State Senate then approved the bill without so much as a second thought.

But the best joke from this whole sorry episode probably comes from the Democratic candidate now making this an issue, who notes in his stump speech, “If somebody holds me down and drives a microchip into my head, it had better be more than just a damn misdemeanor!”

Last night, Republican Governor Linda Lingle broke a promise and dismissed the will of Hawaiian citizens as she vetoed HB 444, which would have allowed both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions with all the rights enjoyed by married couples.

Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, issued the following statement in response to Governor Lingle’s veto of the civil union bill:

“We at the DLCC are disappointed in Governor Lingle for ignoring the will of Hawaiian citizens as expressed by the Hawaii legislature’s passage of this landmark legislation. Governor Lingle also broke her campaign promise not to veto a civil union bill if passed by the state legislature. She has denied Hawaii the opportunity to become the latest example of states leading the way on equality.”

Vetoing the legislation broke a promise Lingle made in her first campaign for governor in 2002.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said [emphasis added].

Democratic legislators did their part and voted their conscience on “that legislation,” after a marathon 18 hours of earnest debate. But their work was undone by the Governor's broken promise.

And in breaking her promise, Governor Lingle denied hundreds of thousands of her own citizens a right she probably takes for granted.

The Governor’s veto is a sad setback in the ongoing fight for equality. But that fight continues.

One day, America will look back on the struggle for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. Governor Lingle will be one of the reasons.

Today could mark a significant milestone for civil rights in our country.

By the end of the day, a bill that allows both same-sex and heterosexual couples to receive the same protections under law as married couples (HB 444) will be

A. Signed into law by Governor Linda Lingle,
B. Vetoed by Governor Lingle, or
C. Allowed to become law automatically, without any action by the Governor.

July 6 is the deadline for Governor Lingle to take action on a list of bills she designated in June as ripe for veto. The civil unions bill was on that list.

We helped collect some of the thousands of citizen petitions supporting HB 444, and we were pleased to add them to the voices of local citizens, the business community, and other equal rights supporters from all over the country demanding this important step towards equality.

If this civil unions bill becomes law, seven states and the District of Columbia would either grant full civil marriage equality or recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Another eight states - including Hawaii – would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So after today, nearly 108 million Americans could live in states where same-sex couples enjoy legal status and at least some or all of the protections enjoyed by other married couples.

Governor Lingle’s signature on HB 444 – or even her failure to veto it – would be only the most recent example of states outpacing the federal government and forging ahead in the path towards equal rights.

But we've seen this before, and that's what gives us hope. State-based health care reforms led to national health care reform, and state-based clean energy laws are adding momentum for national climate action.

That means the harder states push for equal rights - and more state-level momentum we build - the closer we get to equality for everyone.

One day, America will look back on the fight for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. When that day comes, we'll have the states to thank.

Back in May, a diarist at SwingStateProject revisited Tom DeLay’s infamous mid-decade gerrymandering of Texas. Using Dave’s Redistricting App (an excellent “do it yourself” redistricting tool that didn’t exist publically in 2001) to produce maps, demographic data, and presidential election results in each district, the diarist produced an excellent study of what might have happened without DeLay’s hijinks.

The diarist makes a different argument than we would, but what most have forgotten (and what the data strikingly reveals) is how many of the long-time Democratic members of congress targeted by DeLay and the Republicans came from staunchly Republican districts even before the 2003 gerrymander. Targeted Democrats in the 17th, 11th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st districts all represented constituents who gave either George Bush or John McCain (or both) at least two-thirds of the vote.

All of these Democrats won elections in 2002, and some of them won nearly 60% of the vote themselves in that year, which was certainly not a strong one for Democrats. It stands to reason that many of the Texas Democrats who lost in 2004 did so not because they found themselves in more conservative districts, but because so many voters in their new districts were unfamiliar. These news voters had never seen the incumbent congressperson on a ballot and (if they lived in an unfamiliar media market) may never have seen the incumbent’s campaign ads in previous years.

So the threat of Republican gerrymandering goes beyond the risk of Democratic incumbents being drawn into more conservative districts. It’s also easy to target Democrats who already represent tough districts – particularly in states where Democrats have gained recently despite an already GOP-friendly map.

If we can prevent the GOP from having complete control over redistricting in key states, they won’t be able to target Democrats with the impunity they showed in Texas.

And that’s just one more reason why this election is the most important we’ll see for the next ten years.

Yesterday was the first day that the health care reform law’s “high-risk pools,” set up by the federal government to cover people with pre-existing conditions, began accepting applications. But because states have the option of using the federal plan or setting up their own, only 21 states can take applications so far:

These 21 states have asked the federal government to run the high-risk pool rather than administer it themselves: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming.

Residents of these states can apply starting Thursday. Administration officials said people who apply by July 15 will begin receiving coverage by Aug. 1.

The remaining 29 states and the District of Columbia will run their own programs and begin accepting applications over the next several months.

“Asked,” of course, is a charitable description by the Los Angeles Times. No doubt some of these states – particularly those with Democratic-controlled legislatures and whose leadership actually care about the uninsured – weighed the options and decided that a federally-run high-risk pool is the better option for them. The federal pools are coming online quicker, most likely, because Federal officials have had the better part of two years to think about how to implement high-risk pools, and some states obviously saw value in having a plan that’s part of a national standard.

But other states didn’t “ask” the federal government to set up their high-risk pools any more than an infant throwing a dinner-time temper tantrum “asks” mommy or daddy to handle the spoon and sippy-cup. For Republican officials in those states, local control was far less important than throwing their tantrum and making a big show out of refusing to lift a finger for reform.

Mother Jones described the situation with a little bit more context at the beginning of May:

At least 15 states—all but three led by Republicans—have decided against creating insurance pools for Americans with pre-existing conditions, forcing the federal government to step in and establish the high-risk pools itself. By contrast, at least 28 states—all but seven led by Democrats—will help the federal government by creating the pools themselves. It’s the first major decision for states to make under the new law. And the Republican-led refusals are the latest sign that red states will be far less willing to play nice as health reform gets underway.

Ultimately, though, the L.A. Times got it right. Republicans may have thought they were making some grand statement against President Obama and against health care reform by refusing to cooperate in the high-risk pools, but all they were really doing is asking the federal government to make the decisions for them.

And they didn’t even succeed in slowing down reform in their states. If anything, they sped it up – which makes this Republican failure a WIN for those with preexisting conditions.

The far-right Republican platform-writers are at it again, this time in Montana, where the recently-adopted GOP platform fully embraces the idea of government officials policing people’s bedrooms:

(…)the Montana Republican Party has adopted a platform that would criminalize “homosexual acts”:

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Ironically, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that it violated the constitutional right to privacy. [H/T Think Progress]

The Montana Supreme Court, of course, was about six years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared state anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional in 2003. In the facts surrounding that case, Lawrence v. Texas, a sheriff’s deputy had burst into the apartment of one of the petitioners and arrested them both under Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. It was literally a case of the government policing people’s bedrooms.

And speaking of Texas, the GOP platform there also seeks to turn back the clock and return to a pre-Lawrence authoritarian utopia:

The 2010 GOP platform in Texas supports laws that criminalize sodomy and suggests that straight people who support same-sex marriage should be penalized with jail time. The GOP platform was quoted as openly stating:

“We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy,” the GOP platform reads. Meaning that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws last decade (ironically in a case that stemmed from Texas), Texas Republicans would like the state to have the power to criminalize LGBT folks for having sex.

Thankfully, this is one idea where Republicans are clearly swimming against the tide of equal rights.