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

Overview

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

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

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

Redistricting Implications

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

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

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

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

Legislatures in the Crosshairs

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

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

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

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

Mobilizing for the Fight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Michael Sargeant
Executive Director
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

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

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

Don’t buy into the hype.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So don’t you dare bury us yet.

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

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

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

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

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

LaRoche, running in House District 48, gets it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Republican running for state office has weighed in on Jeremy Walters’ reprehensible comments.

Dave Leach, who is running for Iowa state Senate, says that the Republican Party of Iowa erred in denouncing Walters for claiming that AIDS is a punishment from God for homosexuality.

The Iowa Independent has the latest:

Leach, who is running against Democratic state Sen. Matt McCoy in Senate District 31, said Walters statement was “theologically clumsy, but it seemed close enough to Biblical truth to not merit a censure from the Republican Party.”

“GOP head Matt Strawn is right in saying HIV does not discriminate; in other words, the fact that someone has HIV by no means proves they got it through sodomy,” Leach said in an e-mail to Strawn and The Iowa Independent. “But I don’t see that that is what Jeremy said.”

Whether the Bible says there is a connection shouldn’t matter, he said, since, “everyone knows there is this connection.”

From Leach’s email:

Everyone knows sodomites suffer [HIV/AIDS] far more than the rest of the population, and that sodomy’s practices, which are so embarrassingly unsanitary that you dare not detail them in one of your articles, would inevitably create such a disease if it did not already exist. It seems “inappropriate,” to use Strawn’s word, to apologize for saying what the Bible says, with which everyone agrees. It is “inappropriate” for anyone to ask such a thing. I am sorry that Jeremy gave up his ground, although at least he stood it for awhile, which is more than most will do.

You can learn more about Iowa state Sen. Matt McCoy, the Democrat Leach hopes to unseat this fall, here.

Leach recently directed his inflammatory rhetoric directly at Sen. McCoy. At a rally staged by the National Organization for Marriage at the beginning of August, Leach handed out campaign fliers and told The Iowa Independent, “I am running against Iowa’s chief sodomite.”

One Iowa is expressing concern over the increasingly violent rhetoric emerging in the Iowa GOP.

“Considering Leach’s background and his most recent statements, we’re beginning to see a disturbing pattern of Iowa GOP candidates who use violent rhetoric and misinformation as a political weapon,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “These remarks fan the flames of bigotry and hatred and they have no place in our civic dialogue.”

So this is what it’s come to, just a few days removed from the 90th anniversary of the day the 19th Amendment was ratified. Elyse Siegel at the Huffington Post reports that Minnesota’s 56th District GOP committee wants you to vote Republican because they think their favorite conservatives look better in bikinis:

The nearly five-minute long spot is set to the tune of Tom Jones' "She's a Lady" and touts the physique of ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, along with that of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and other familiar female conservative faces.

Following a montage of images hyping the Republican looks, the music transitions to Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out?" before distorted snapshots of House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Rosie O'Donnell's head photoshopped onto 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's body flash across the screen.

(First Lady Michele Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are also among the Democratic figures highlighted in the web ad.)

DFL State Chair Brian Melendez blasted the message of the web ad, calling it “Sexist and offensive.” He added that “The day when a woman was judged by her looks rather than her competence and intelligence should have passed three generations ago.” We would add that cheap-shot personal attacks against an officeholder’s family are supposed to be off-limits, too.

But then again, political instincts like those displayed by 56th District Republicans are probably one reason Democrats gained 32 State Legislative seats in Minnesota over the last two cycles (including both State House seats and the State Senate seat in district 56).

That’s because Minnesota voters have a long history of rewarding candidates who campaign respectfully of each other and punishing candidates who behave like oafs.

So by all means: stay classy, Minnesota Republicans.

A Republican candidate for the Iowa House has found himself under recent scrutiny for some reprehensible comments he posted on his Facebook page.

The Iowa Independent broke the story Tuesday, revealing that Jeremy Walters, who is running against the Democratic Majority Leader of the Iowa state House, posted some incendiary remarks regarding AIDS and homosexuality on his Facebook page last week (he’s since removed them in a belated fit of remorse, but that’s what screenshots are for). Walters wrote that when the Bible says homosexuals should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the “blood” is actually AIDS.

The folks at One Iowa were understandably upset about these reprehensible statements, and they swiftly demanded that the Iowa GOP denounce Walters’ musings.

Which the Iowa GOP did:

“Mr. Walters’ comments are inappropriate and in no way represent the beliefs of the Republican Party of Iowa,” Strawn said in a statement to The Iowa Independent. “HIV/AIDS does not discriminate and our hearts and prayers go out to any Iowa family facing this disease.”

Walters, meanwhile, stood by his statements:

Walters told The Des Moines Register that he has no plans to remove the posting from his Facebook page, saying it’s only offensive to gay rights advocates, “because they know it’s the truth. Truth does hurt.”

But by 6:50 p.m. Tuesday evening, he had removed the vile sentiments from his Facebook page. (This came shortly after the Iowa Republicans rescinded his invitation to staff their State Fair booth on Thursday and Saturday. There is no direct evidence that these events were linked, but we find the timing suspect.)

Walters also posted an apology of sorts (quoted directly, no edits):

I appologize for the mistake and if this statement offened anyone.
Both postings have been removed and these comments do not pertain to my campaign or the Republican Party of Iowa.My passion is to listen and learn from the people so I can represent them at the state house. Everyone makes mistakes, please forgive me.

One of the intrepid bloggers at Think Progress succeeded in contacting Walters, who took the opportunity to explain himself further:

WALTERS: I just felt people should know what’s in the Bible, you know, scripture…I’m sorry that I even posted that because now I’m getting all of this attention and it’s bad attention, it’s not good attention. What inspired me posting that is because I had a few friends who were both homosexuals and passed away form AIDS.

VOLSKY: I understand that you regret posting it…But do you still believe that AIDS is the result of the sin of homosexuality?

WALTERS: Well, I don’t want to say that I don’t. I just, like I said, had an experience of friends dying….But back to the posting, that post when I posted, I do feel sorry and denounce what I said.

VOLSKY: Ok, so just to be clear, you are denouncing what you said? So you no longer believe that AIDS is God’s way of getting back at the sin of homosexuality?

WALTERS: Well, you know, I want to say that I’ve been seeing a lot of people that are in that lifestyle become with HIV and AIDS, but like I said, you can also get it through dirty needles and things so…. I would have to say that I removed it because it was not right to post it on there and I shouldn’t be picking on their lives, because they’re not picking on my life. I should be an understanding person and not a hater.

Apparently, the Iowa Republican Party finds his contrition insufficient. Last night he lamented on his Facebook wall (again, no edits):

since everthing that happin Today. I am ban from any events that the Republican party puts on so now what? Am I a bad candidate I want to represent the people not myself.

Here’s a little more background on the political career of GOP House candidate Walters:

He has previously run three times in three different legislative districts, most recently losing to Democrat Geri Huser in House District 42 by more than 20 percentage points in 2004 and in the GOP primary in House District 62 in 2008. He later served as a precinct chair for Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s 2008 Iowa Caucus campaign.

Walters is currently running in state House District 67 and seeks to unseat House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

The American Prospect’s Paul Waldman posted an insightful column on redistricting today. It’s satisfying to see someone else acknowledging that state legislative races are incredibly important this fall.

As Washington wonders whether the shudder-inducing words "Speaker of the House John Boehner" will soon be on lips across the country, the implications of the fall elections for our political geography has gone largely without notice. Elections for control of state legislatures will also be taking place, and though most people know little if anything about who represents them in state capitols, this year it matters a great deal: We just completed a census, and legislatures in most states will be redrawing the boundaries of congressional districts in 2011.

Waldman also explains why and how Democrats are girding for the fight of our political lives.

After the 2000 census, Republicans controlled most of the country's state legislatures and used them mercilessly. For instance, Republicans in Pennsylvania drew the lines so that they ended up holding 12 of the state's 19 congressional districts, despite the fact that it was (and remains) a Democratic-leaning swing state. The GOP managed similar outcomes in Florida and Ohio. In the time since, however, Democrats have invested heavily in preparing for the next round of redistricting, creating a spate of organizations most Americans have never heard of. There's the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democrats in states get elected, with an eye toward maintaining as many of those precious majorities as possible; the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, which is preparing to fight legal battles over redistricting; and the Foundation for the Future, which is assembling the data necessary to arm Democratic map-drawers.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones’ Suzy Khimm provides her readers with a helpful reminder that, even though the Department of Justice has closed the book on their investigation of Tom DeLay, he’s certainly not out of the legal woods.

DeLay still faces criminal money laundering and conspiracy charges for funneling money into 2002 state legislative races in Texas. The criminal case is up for a hearing next week.

The scheme was part of DeLay's 2003 effort to redraw the state's Congressional map to favor Republicans, as state legislators must approve redistricting changes. As the AP reminds us, DeLay and his two co-defendants are accused of funneling $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee, then back to state legislative candidates, in violation of state law. …

Both cases against the man-formerly-known-as-the-Hammer have spent years churning through the system, but the timing of DeLay's Texas case seems particularly apt, as the next round of redistricting will happen nationwide in 2011, to reflect population changes recorded in the 2010 Census.

A lot of Texas Republicans seem to be in trouble these days. We’re surely keeping our eye on them, even as we fight for majorities in legislative chambers all across the country.

Republican state Rep. Joe Driver of Texas just got some news that’s going to “pretty well screw" his week... or month.... or election cycle.

The AP wrapped up some solid investigative reporting this week on Rep. Driver’s billing practices and confronted the Texas Republican with the findings.

The veteran Republican legislator, faced with findings from an investigation by The Associated Press, acknowledged in an interview that for years he has been submitting the same receipts – for luxury hotels, airline tickets, meals, fees and incidentals – to both his campaign and to the Texas House. He has also been collecting thousands of dollars in state mileage reimbursements for travel in vehicles for which his campaign has shelled out more than $100,000 since 2000.

The AP's review of hundreds of pages of state and campaign travel records found that Driver double-billed for at least $17,431.55 in travel expenses, much of it at upscale out-of-state hotels, since 2005. The number could go higher, but House travel records before mid-2005 have already been destroyed. Driver has been in office for 18 years. The double-billing figure does not include the vehicle expenses.

Would you believe that he actually thought it was OK to line his pockets with taxpayer money by billing both his campaign and the state for his travel expenses? Or so he has the temerity to claim:

A conservative on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which oversees how state dollars are spent, Driver said he thought it was OK to bill two entities for the same expenses. He said he routinely pays hotels and airlines with donated political funds and then submits the same expenses to the state, taking the taxpayer money for himself.

"Now you're scaring the heck out of me," Driver told the AP, adding: "It pretty well screws my week."
…
Driver insists he thought the double-billing was perfectly appropriate – until talking about it with the AP.

"Well, it doesn't sound like it is now. If you bring it up that way," he said.

Rep. Driver, known for his diatribes against runaway government spending, will now likely become the subject of an investigation for violations of both civil and criminal law.

Rep. Driver joins fellow Republican state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown in the ethical shadows. In June, Rep. Harper-Brown got caught driving a $55,000 Mercedes Benz owned by an influential highway contractor that does over $12 million in business with the state of Texas.

This fall, “Double-Dip” Driver faces Democrat Jamie Dorris in the November general election. Democrat Loretta Haldenwang is challenging Linda “Harper-Benz.”

Residents of Missouri state Senate district 26 selected their Republican candidate for the seat on August 3. State Rep. Brian Nieves defeated local mayor Richard Stratman in a contest that became ugly and incendiary in its waning days amid accusations that Rep. Nieves repeatedly committed adultery and paid former Republican state House Speaker Rod Jetton (who is awaiting trial on felony assault charges surrounding a sexual encounter) as a campaign consultant.

But the accusations made before the primary pale in comparison to what Stratman staffer Shawn Bell is alleging occurred the day after (via TPM):

Bell alleges that, on his way home to Jefferson City on August 4th, he happened by Nieves' campaign office and noticed the car of Nieves' campaign treasurer, Dave Bailey, parked outside. Not seeing Nieves car, Bell told police he decided to stop to congratulate Bailey. But no sooner did he offer his congratulations to Bailey than he was surprised by Nieves. Bell says that Nieves called him a "little fuck" threw him across the room as Bailey closed the blinds. When Bell reminded him that they both were Republicans, he got an unexpected response.

He then pulled out a black gun out [sic] of his pocket and made sure that I saw it and set it on a table. He told me he was going to kill me. I began to curl up into a ball and break down in fear and was yelling for help. He asked if I was wearing a wire and I told him NO; that I didn't come to bring harm. He felt my chest, stomach and back to feel for a wire. He was still yelling at me and saying how back he was going to fuck me up. He head butted me on my forehead and It hurt but it wasn't full power. I have had a headache ever since. He also slapped me across the face several times (at least twice, maybe more) but also not to his full potential He then drug [sic] me into the next room that appeared to be a kitchen area with a fridge, tile floor, and a sink. He still insinuated that I had a wire and made me take off my shirt.

After that, Bell says Nieves mocked his weight and then forced him first to get on his knees to beg forgiveness and then to lie on the floor.

As I was laying down looking up at him, he began to talk about when he was in the Navy. He asked me if I had ever had the absolute shit kicked out of me and I told him no. He asked if I had ever been in a fight and I told him once when in college. He said that he grew up in the projects and that "niggers" used to jump him and kick and beat the shit out of him relentless. He said everyone needs a theaurapeutic [sic] ass kicking in their life and that he was about to give me one.

Bell said that Nieves told him Bailey wouldn't back him up in court, told him he was sick of looking at his chest and allowed him to get dressed. Nieves then reportedly told Bell to come into his office, where he demanded to know whether Bell had been the opposition researcher behind some of the allegations during the campaign. Bell told police he denied it, but that Nieves then went through the text messages in his phone and began writing some of them down, and then accused Bell of "flipping off [Nieves'] family while they were in the car on Sunday." When Bell denied it, Nieves accused him of calling Nieves' family liars. Then Nieves reportedly threatened Bell's boss James Harris, and told Bell that Harris was the adulterer. Finally, Nieves demanded that Bell apologize to Nieves' wife over the phone. After the phone call finished, Bell said Nieves asked for explanations of who certain people in Bell's phone were and said, if Bell lied, "he would fuck me up like the little pussy bitch I am." Nieves reportedly discovered Bell had asked people to "mess with" Nieves' Facebook page or call into his radio show as part of the campaign.

Bell told police that Nieves eventually calmed down and let him go after Bell promised not to tell anyone; after returning to retrieve his sunglasses, Bell went back to Jefferson City and told his boss, Harris, who told him to write up the account; as he was doing so, Harris asked him to come to his house and have a conversation with a lawyer. After that conversation, and one with his parents, Bell decided to file the complaint and pursue a restraining order.

You can read Bell’s full complaint here.

Nieves faces former Democratic state Rep. George “Boots” Weber in the November general election.

Mother Jones featured a post today on the importance of this fall’s governors’ races.

Congressional campaigns have dominated 2010 election coverage, given the Democrats' precarious grip on majorities in both Houses. But the New York Times explains how much is at stake beyond Capitol Hill. Both parties have poured millions of dollars into governors' races across the country, given the redrawing of congressional and state legislative districts that will happen in every state next year.

True, both parties are devoting significant resources to gubernatorial races. True, redistricting will occur in every state next year.

Governors typically play a key role in overseeing the redistricting process, along with state legislatures...

Actually, state legislatures are the ones playing the “key role.”

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 384 (most likely, pending final Census results) of the 435 congressional seats.

Governors generally have an important role to play (except where they have no veto authority over redistricting, like in Connecticut and North Carolina). In many states, congressional district maps must be approved by the governor before they can go into effect. In other states, governors appoint or are members of redistricting commissions or boards. (You can find a state-by-state breakdown of who does what when it comes to redistricting here.)

A governor may accept or reject a map based on its benefit to his or her party, but governors are not subject to district boundaries, so they have little stake in the new legislative or congressional districts beyond the general welfare of their party. Redistricting often just becomes part of the regular legislative bargaining that takes place between the governor and the legislature.

State legislators, however, not only have greater control over the drawing of congressional district boundaries, but they also have greater interest in the result. Congressional district maps are often a part of a legislative package that includes the new maps of state legislative districts. Additionally, state legislators are generally more likely to run for congressional seats they create than are statewide officeholders.

The lines these state legislators draw will affect the partisan makeup of Congress for the next 10 years. If the Republicans boast success on the state legislative level this fall, they’ll have the chance to gerrymander their way into an artificial congressional majority for the next decade. Progressive policies will stall in the House as a Republican Speaker refuses to allow Democratic legislation to come up for votes.

So, yes, congressional races are significant this year, just like they are in every even-numbered year. And gubernatorial contests are important and exciting.

But, while state legislative races may be the least conspicuous on many ballots this fall, these elections could be more significant than all the rest combined.

Texas residents enjoy one of the most informative and data-laden redistricting websites of any state in America, maintained by the Texas Legislative Council. The site contains detailed descriptions of the redistricting process in Texas; the state and federal requirements for various types of districts; and an interactive “DistrictViewer” capable of comparing actual and proposed maps down to the street level.

But the information we found most interesting was an archive of congressional redistricting plans from Texas statehood until today.

The maps show Texas’ early days as a two-district state (a jarring image for those used to seeing a 32-district congressional powerhouse). There are historical quirks like Texas’ temporary 19th Century claim to Greene County, which spent several years with no House representation at all and later became part of Oklahoma.

The archive also clearly demonstrates the impact of Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), which established the redistricting principle that all congressional districts must be approximately equal in population. As was common in many urbanizing Southern states prior to Wesberry, the archive shows that Texas redistricted only once between 1917 and 1957. And the 1965 redistricting plan was the first in which several urban counties were split into more than one congressional district. (The 1957 plan only divided Harris County in half, whereas 5 counties were divided in 1965.)

And of course, there’s the infamous DeLay-mander of 2003, the maps for which are more commonly available.

All-in-all, this is a wonderful resource for those interested in political history. If combined with county-level election results, it might be interesting to see how some of these districts voted in presidential elections – recent or otherwise.

Ever since Democrats won control of the Colorado Legislature in 2004, the state has become a leader in pushing for clean energy investment. And that leadership was recently recognized by U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who described Colorado as a model for national action.

Aldo Svaldi and Drew FitzGerald at the Denver Post wrote about Locke's remarks a few weeks ago:

The country could miss a key opportunity for growth if it doesn't soon follow Colorado's example in pursuing the new-energy economy, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said Monday. (...)

Colorado earlier this year required that utilities obtain 30 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, one of the nation's strictest mandates.

That was an increase from an earlier voter- approved requirement of 20 percent by 2020, and the mandate has helped the state attract thousands of jobs in wind, solar and other technologies.

Republicans in both legislative chambers voted near-unanimously against HB 1001, which established the new standard – presumably because they’d rather see more job creation in China, instead of Colorado and elsewhere in the United States.

As Secretary Locke explained, Republican intransigence on clean energy is already causing the United States to fall behind:

China, by contrast, is investing $9 billion a month in the clean-energy field, and not just to meet its own internal energy needs or improve emissions. The Chinese want to export the technology to other countries and reap the millions of jobs that could come from doing that, Locke said.

"If we don't act soon on an energy policy . . . we will wake up and say, 'How is it that Shanghai, China, or Berlin, Germany, have become the next Silicon Valley of clean energy?' " he said.

Colorado, of course, is hardly alone in the push for clean energy. 2009 saw a surge of activity in several states, almost always led and supported by Democratic lawmakers.

It’s an open question whether Republicans will eventually come around to supporting clean energy legislation. But no matter what they do, you can expect Democrats to continue making it a priority in Colorado and across the country.

It isn’t always about majorities.

Even with Florida Republicans defending 25 open State House seats this fall (compared to the Democrats’ 3 open seats), strategists on both sides will admit that overtaking the GOP’s 74-44 House advantage or 26-13 Senate advantage would be a tall order even in a Democratic-leaning year.

But as the South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s Josh Hafenbrack explains, Florida Democrats are in an excellent position to achieve two other crucial goals this year. On the one hand, gaining just five of those open seats would deny the Republicans the ability to pass state constitutional amendments at will (a power they’ve enjoyed since 1998).

On the other hand, simply holding their current number of seats would deny Republicans the 2/3 majority they’ll need to override a (hopefully) Democratic gubernatorial veto. Hafenbrack describes what that unchecked GOP power would mean for Floridians:

The result, for Floridians, is likely to be statehouse politics that the Tea Party can love. Expect renewed legislative efforts to dismantle teacher tenure and mandate ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, proposals vetoed by newly independent Gov. Charlie Crist this year.

And, of course, a 2/3 Republican majority in the legislature would leave a Democratic governor with no leverage whatsoever to influence the congressional redistricting process in one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. George Bush won twice as many of Florida’s congressional districts as either Al Gore or John Kerry (winning 17-8 in 2000 and 18-7 in 2004), and even John McCain, who lost Florida by nearly 3% statewide, still won more congressional districts than President Obama (a 15-10 advantage).

Even if Democrats win back the governorship this year, unpacking that gerrymander depends on holding our ground in the state legislature or advancing by just a few seats.

It’s unusual to see broad-based action on an issue that rarely gets consistent media attention. But that’s why we’re so heartened by this year’s onslaught of legislation at the state level to combat human trafficking in America. The Washington Post explains:

So far this year, more than 40 bills have been enacted and roughly 350 introduced. That compares with just eight bills adopted across the country in 2006, according to the Polaris Project, an anti-trafficking group based in Washington. (…)

"We were the first state to start all of this," said [Washington] state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), the sponsor of much of the state's anti-trafficking legislation. "We've strengthened the law every year." In 2009, she said, the state forced employers who bring in foreign workers to notify them of all labor laws and allow them to keep their travel documents. (…)

"I represent a large number of immigrants and learned more and more about the issue of trafficking," said Virginia Del. Adam P. Ebbin (D), who sponsored one of the new laws. "By putting the code in place, I'm hopeful we can now combat it."

Just how big a problem is human trafficking? Huge. The U.S. State Department estimates that over 12 million people are currently the victims of human trafficking for the purposes of forced labor, bonded labor, or sexual exploitation.

And despite the issue’s low profile here, trafficking remains a systemic problem in the United States. From the Washington Post again:

Statistics documenting the problem are vague and vary widely. The government estimates that 14,500 to 17,500 victims of trafficking are brought to the United States each year. A study funded by the Justice Department found that almost 250,000 children fall into a category of trafficking victims because they are at risk of sexual exploitation.

Hopefully, the new laws at the state level will provide investigators and prosecutors with more effective tools to uncover and shut down trafficking rings in their respective states.

Last week at a meeting in Louisville, the DLCC’s Board of Directors – made up of Democratic legislative leaders from across the country – voted to admit Tennessee’s Mike Turner as our newest board member.

Representing the 51st State House District (based in Davidson County) since 2000, Rep. Turner is the Caucus Chairman of the Tennessee House Democrats. But his commitment to public service extends far beyond the halls of the capitol. Rep. Turner is also an active member of his family’s church, three local chambers of commerce, and the professional associations representing Nashville firefighters and Tennessee state employees – along with many other community organizations he remains involved with.

Rep. Turner also serves as a local fire captain, and in that capacity he personally participated in the rescue of Nashville residents stranded in the devastating flooding earlier this year. The Tennessee House of Representatives honored his actions with a resolution of praise shortly thereafter, and a local news crew captured images of Rep. Turner wading through neck-deep floodwaters in order to bring residents to safer ground:

Finally, as a Democratic leader in one of the Democratic Party’s most important redistricting priority states this year (both legislative chambers are within just a few seats of returning to Democratic control), Rep. Turner’s guidance and expertise will prove invaluable as the 2010 campaign heats up.

Rep. Turner, welcome to the DLCC.

This week, Congress.org responded to a reader’s question regarding redistricting.

The “nonpartisan news and information Web site” addressed the following inquiry:

"When a state's seats are cut after the census, how do they decide which representative is out of a job?"

Congress.org’s Frances Symes responds (emphases added):

After the census, and after the reapportionment has taken place, deciding how many House seats each state will have, the states step in to draw the district lines.

Because the Supreme Court in the 1960s interpreted the Constitution to require that each U.S. House district have equal numbers of people, any state with more than one district is likely to be required to adjust its district lines after each census to limit the variation in population between congressional districts.

Redistricting plans are drawn up and passed by the state legislatures and approved by the governors. In this way, the party that controls the state legislature essentially controls the redistricting.
…
While many political experts disagree about the importance of redistricting to the outcome of House elections, it is clear that it can be crucial in determining the make up of a state's delegation in the House, and thus the make up of Congress itself.

Certain areas within each state show a long-term preference for one party over the other.

Because these voting habits are well known to political experts in each state it is possible to create a district that is almost certain to favor candidates of one party of another. There are many ways to adjust districts to make them more or less friendly to members of a certain party.

In case you’re wondering about Republicans’ version of “friendly to members of a certain party,” allow me to refer you to the infamous 2003 Texas “DeLay-mander.” Gaining and maintaining majorities in state legislative chambers gives Democrats a seat at the redistricting table, so to speak. This will help prevent the GOP from gerrymandering itself into artificial majorities on both the state and federal levels for the next decade.

Symes goes on to posit the query,

So, what happens to an incumbent whose district disappears?

He or she has to run in a new district (which may or may not include part of his or her old district), possibly against another incumbent.

As redistricting nears, this issue is gaining some urgency. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, are predicted to lose congressional seats to other, more rapidly-growing states, such as Texas and Georgia. Once the congressional district boundaries are redrawn in the states losing seats in 2011, not all of those members of Congress will have a district to represent or a seat to run for in 2012.

With so much of the national pundit focus on the 2010 congressional elections, few are pausing to consider that some of these districts currently of so much concern to the makeup of the 112th Congress soon will simply cease to exist.

The non-partisan Annie E. Casey Foundation has released the 2010 edition of its annual Kids Count ranking, which measures each state on 10 key indicators of children’s welfare and educational opportunities. Unsurprisingly, states with Democratic legislatures dominate the 2010 rankings.

Eight of the top-ten overall states have Democratic legislatures – New Hampshire, Minnesota, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Wisconsin. Only one Republican-controlled state and one state with a nominally non-partisan legislature made the top ten.

More impressively, states with Democratically-controlled legislatures outnumber Republican-controlled states in the top-ten* of every single subcategory. The breakdown of each subcategory is:

• Fewest Low-Birthweight Babies: 6D-3R-1Split

• Lowest Infant Mortality: 9D-1R-0Split
• Fewest Child Deaths: 10D-0R-0Split
• Fewest Teen Deaths from All Causes: 10D-0R-0Split
• Fewest Teen Births by Age Group: 9D-1R-0Split
• Fewest Teens Ages 16-19 Not in School and Not H.S. Graduates: 9D-1R-4Split*^
• Fewest Teens Ages 16-19 Not in School and Not Working: 7D-4R-2Split*^
• Fewest Children Living in Families where No Parent has Full-Time, Year-Round Employment: 6D-5R-2Split*^
• Fewest Children in Poverty: 9D-2R-2Split*^
• Fewest Children in Single-Parent Families: 6D-4R-1Split*^

*Because of ties in the subcategories, some top-ten lists contain more than ten states.
^We counted Nebraska’s non-partisan legislature as being under split-control.

The release of the Kids Count ranking comes on the heels of CNBC’s “Top States for Business” ranking, in which not a single state in the top ten of the education subcategory had a Republican-controlled legislature.

Both rankings reinforce the larger argument we make each and every day: that the states that are moving forward and working to provide opportunity for future generations, by and large, are states with Democratic leadership.