The Denver Post recently ran criminal background checks on the major-party nominees for state legislature, and they found a “slew” of mostly Republican candidates with pretty impressive rap sheets.

Lynn Bartels at the Post explores the details:

Bounced checks and bankruptcies. Arrests and restraining orders.

The names of a slew of candidates running for the Colorado legislature can be found in police and court records and other official documents. Some incidents happened decades ago, while others were as recent as this year.

"This is the challenge of having ordinary people running for office," said Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, who is overseeing House Republican candidates and was unaware some had police records.

In all, the Post’s researchers found an astounding 19 Republican nominees with criminal or civil records.

There are a handful of petty crimes and financial disputes among the Post's findings, but the rogues gallery that is the Colorado GOP has also racked up plenty of arrests and charges for violent crimes.

Consider the history of HD-24’s GOP nominee, Clint Webster:

Record: Arrested in 1991 after threatening to kill his ex-wife and firing two shots from a Colt semi automatic pistol at her and another person as they drove away from his house. No one was injured. He pleaded guilty in 1992 to second-degree assault, a felony, two counts of felony menacing and a misdemeanor assault charge.

There were various other arrests and charges against GOP nominees for assault, domestic violence, perjury, and assaulting a police officer (among many, many others).

Of course, it’s hard to tell what impact this information will have on Election Day. Normally, voters ask themselves questions like “which candidate is a better person?” or “am I better off now than I was?”

But this year in Colorado, anyone planning to vote Republican will also need to ask “would I be scared to run into this candidate in a dark alley?”

Let's try something different: Which legislative races do you care about?

Out of over 6,000 state legislative districts up for grabs this year, we've chosen 40 key races to highlight on our 2010 "Essential Races" list. These are 40 critical races that we anticipate will show which way the political tide is turning this fall.

But we recognize our own limitations. There are plenty of other key races all across the country -- so we're asking for your help in identifying them.

For the next few weeks, we'll be accepting nominations from the public for 10 additional state legislative races to be added to our 2010 "Essential Races" list.

Anyone can nominate an Essential Race, and any campaign for state legislature in 2010 is eligible.

It only takes a few clicks, and it could potentially make a huge difference.

Click here to nominate an Essential Race today!

Back in 2008, the Essential Races chosen through public nominations included a lot of campaigns in battleground states, but they also included a few campaigns in states that weren't top targets, but where something about the district or the Democratic nominee made the race unique and deserving of special attention.

We might have overlooked some of those key races without your help, and we'd be foolish not to ask for it again this year.

So who should we add to the list, and why?

Please visit www.dlcc.org/2010Races to nominate an Essential Race today!

Sincerely,

Michael Sargeant
Executive Director
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 27, 2010

Contact: Carolyn Fiddler
202.449.6754
fiddler@dlcc.org

Today, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Executive Director Michael Sargeant unveiled the Essential Races program, a list of crucial state legislative races across the country that will be added to and voted on by grassroots activists nationwide.

“These Essential Races are the key contests for Democratic state legislative control this fall,” said Sargeant. “However, thousands of Democrats are running professionalized, localized campaigns for state legislature in competitive races across the country.”

The DLCC revealed the first 20 candidates in the Essential Races program today; an additional 20 will be announced next week.

The DLCC will also be accepting nominations from grassroots activists around the country for an additional 10 Essential Races. Nominations may be submitted at www.dlcc.org/2010Races. Grassroots Essential Races results will be announced on October 13.

With over 6,000 state legislative races on November ballots across the country, state legislative races seldom get the attention even of sophisticated political observers. Individual districts are rarely polled publicly. The Essential Races program helps identify the few races that will be most significant in 2010. At just 40 candidates, the Essential Races list constitutes only a fraction of the competitive state legislative campaigns this year. In 2008, more than 160 state legislative races were decided by 200 votes or fewer. A complete list of races to watch this fall would run into the hundreds.

"This list of Essential Races represents a relative handful of races deserving of special attention,” explained Sargeant. “Some are races we anticipate to be the most competitive in their states. Others are bellwethers for similar districts elsewhere. Still others are examples of key races in critical redistricting battlegrounds.”

The inaugural list of Essential Races contains contests from the states of Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, to name only a few.

Selling something you don’t own in the first place (say, an iconic bridge in Brooklyn) is a form of fraud, but that’s not stopping GOP state House challenger Bob Boswell from selling Colorado’s 50th District seat to highest bidder more than seven weeks before Election Day.

In a letter to Colorado lobbyists dated September 13th, Boswell opened with “Well, we’re getting down to the nut-cutting,” and went on to declare “I am going to win this race. The opportunity for you to align yourselves and your clients with the next Representative of House District 50 is now.”

As Nate Miller of the Greeley Tribune explains, that crosses a major ethical line:

I've never seen a letter like this,” said Luis Toro, director of Denver-based Colorado Ethics Watch. “It's blatantly addressed to lobbyists. That, in and of itself, is highly unusual.”

Colorado Ethics Watch said Thursday the letter, which makes a direct appeal for campaign cash, sends the clear message that influence can be bought, a charge Boswell denied. (…)

Toro said the letter is unambiguous.

“I think the clear message of this letter is: This office is for sale, access is for sale and now is the time to buy,” he said. “There's really no other way to read the language.”

The fundraising letter was one of three Boswell sent to lobbyists, but as this third letter notes, “maybe I’ve not sent out all the right signals.” That’s obviously still a problem for him.

No doubt the voters of the 50th District wish Boswell cared less about the signals he’s sending to lobbyists and more about the issues facing Colorado families. If so, Boswell is one “nut” they can cut loose this November.

The Democratic candidate in this race is state Rep. Jim Riesberg.

Amid all the buzz today about the GOP's so-called "Pledge to America," few people are likely to be pondering redistricting.

But they should be.

Sure, the “Pledge” gives everyone a great deal to think about—including some prominent Republicans, who seem to see the "Pledge" as more of a double-cross.

They're calling it "laughable," "stagnant" "dreck" and saying that it "proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy." One GOP operative called it "the most ridiculous thing to come out of Washington since George McClellan." (Ouch.)

These reactions are perfectly understandable, since the GOP "Pledge" calls for $3.8 trillion in new debt. It would take away health insurance from 28 million Americans. And it would allow health insurers to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions unless they're lucky enough to already have coverage.

But Democrats rubbing their hands together in glee at the agenda’s absurdities and the infighting it’s already causing may be premature.

You see, if Republicans win enough state legislatures to gerrymander their way to a majority in Congress, this Republican “Pledge” could set the political and policy agendas for an entire decade.

The failures of the GOP plan don’t just apply to national debt and healthcare. There's nothing in the "Pledge" about protecting the environment, or fixing immigration, or improving our schools - all critical issues that hold America back every day they're not addressed.

The GOP’s so-called “Pledge to America” could very well become a reality if Republicans win enough state legislative seats to gerrymander their party into power for the next decade. This “Pledge” provides the most compelling evidence to date that a gerrymandered GOP majority would mean the end of any hope for progressive change for the next ten years.

Republicans may not take the majority in Congress in this fall’s elections. But if they win majorities in a few key state legislatures, redistricting could give them all the time in the world over the next ten years to double-cross Americans with their “Pledge.”

Republican State Rep. Gerald Allen – best known for his bizarre 2005 proposed bill that would have banned certain works of William Shakespeare from Alabama public school libraries because of gay characters – is running for State Senate this year and trying to hide his atrocious anti-education voting record by handing out taxpayer money to local schools.

There’s just one problem – Allen isn’t actually providing real money. He’s giving out hand-written, often unsigned IOUs that are nearly as untrustworthy as Henry V's Earl of Cambridge. And as the Northport Gazette’s John Cargile explains, Allen’s routine is wearing thin with local schools:

Allen has given several schools IOU’s allegedly from Gov. Bob Riley’s office. However, each IOU is a simple hand-written note on scratch paper, and no signatures are attached by either Allen or Riley. Specifically, he has promised $15,000 to Tuscaloosa County High School, and $20,000 each to Sipsey Valley High and Middle School. Allen has also made similar promises to Brookwood Elementary, Taylorville Primary, Gordo Elementary, and Gordo High School for a field house. To date, Allen’s IOUs add up to over $140,000. (…)

A Tuscaloosa County High School administrator, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “Allen should be exposed for what he has done.”

Allen gave County High $15,000 recently, but the school administrator said, “There’s not a penny in our bank account from that piece of paper. The paper was unsigned, so no one knows what is happening. A lot of school principals are upset over it, I know that.”

At one point, Allen and Democratic Senator Phil Poole (Allen’s opponent) both attended the dedication ceremony for a new middle and high school in the district. After Allen handed envelopes to the two new principals and proudly declared that he’d just given them both $20,000 for their schools, Sen. Poole advised them to open the envelopes and check what was actually inside.

The answer: no money – just another worthless, unenforceable IOU.

It’s unclear whether Allen bothered to type the IOUs this time instead of scribbling them on cocktail napkins, but at least there was an envelope. At any rate, given Allen’s incompetence in directing state money to local schools, Cargile wisely asked administrators whether Sen. Poole had done a better job. He had:

The Tuscaloosa County High administrator said Poole has already given the school $84,000 in real money and it is in the bank. The money has been earmarked for a new gymnasium floor at the school, to the band and to purchase baseball equipment, the source said. He said $24,000 was earmarked for the school’s general fund. To date, Poole indicates that he has contributed approximately $1.7 million of “real money” to the four school systems in his Senate District.

Voters in Alabama Senate District 21 have an easy choice this November.

Last week, Noah Rothman of Campaigns & Elections magazine interviewed our own Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the DLCC, about redistricting and the upcoming legislative elections this November. The complete interview is available on their website, but here is the key exchange from that interview, discussing how our candidates have historically weathered poor election climates:

C&E: What is the overall electoral strategy in the states to prevent major losses and even to make some gains?

Sargeant: The DLCC has been working on these issues for many years. We work very closely to put together the best campaigns possible. We have built a large infrastructure over time. We got to 60 [Democratic] majorities to 36 [Republican majorities], that didn’t happen overnight. Our candidates talk about issues that pertain to their districts. Their campaigns are about what happens in their communities, and not about divisive national issues. Our campaigns weather good or bad national elections, and we try to do this all the time. That’s why we are able to hold majorities in so many “red states.” This is part of our strategy all the time and it is not foreign to us now.

Sargeant went on to explain how campaigns for state legislature – even though they’re essentially local in nature – fit into the longer-term political landscape:

State legislatures are the true firewall for the Democratic Party. The [Democratic] gains in the state legislatures preceded the Democratic “waves” of 2006 and 2008, and we had successes prior to those as well. Our leaders are going to hold strong in this cycle as well.

The interview goes on to discuss individual battleground states up for grabs this year and Democratic chances to hold or capture majorities there.

Part 2 of 2:

Ohio’s State House of Representatives is one of the biggest redistricting battlegrounds this November. A relative handful of Ohio House contests offer Democrats an opportunity to unpack one of the worst GOP gerrymanders in the country, and they offer Republicans a chance to fine-tune their handiwork and wipe away the Democratic gains since 2006.

Last week, local and national media profiled the Democrats’ candidate-led field campaign in Ohio, and those reports reflect an extremely impressive effort at the grassroots level.

Both the L.A. Times’ Mark Z. Barabak and the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Aaron Marshall met up with some of the most closely-watched Democratic candidates last week and found campaign operations committed to an extensive – and sophisticated – field plan:

"The best, most compelling way for a House candidate to persuade is through direct contact with a voter," said Keary McCarthy, a spokesman for the House Democratic Caucus. "The value of that labor is extraordinary in terms of outcomes." (…)

State Rep. Dan Dodd, a Hebron Democrat, said the Democratic approach changed in 2008 when the state party began using more-sophisticated voter profiling programs. As a result, he saw thousands of addresses he would have gone to in previous elections years drop off.

"I don't want to say that I thought they were crazy, but I thought it was a risky thing to do," said Dodd. "But targeting your time to reach the voters that are probably the most able to be persuaded has been a much more effective tactic for me."

House Democratic Caucus staffers acknowledge that the screen is getting tighter. "If you have four hours on an afternoon and you're going to have a chance to have a conversation with a handful of voters, you better make sure it's the right ones," McCarthy said.

2008 was also the year Democrats finally overcame a GOP-drawn state legislative map and captured a majority. The Caucus is clearly hoping their successful use of modeling will pay dividends in a tougher climate.

But no matter how sophisticated the data, it’s useless without dedicated volunteers and hard-working candidates willing to knock on the doors. Ohio House Democrats are proving they have plenty of both:

House Democrats say one of the most aggressive door-knockers in Northeast Ohio is Mark Schneider, a first-term Lake County lawmaker who faces a stiff challenge from Republican former Rep. Ron Young.

Schneider, who several times has won a weekly internal caucus award for door-knocking, estimates he has knocked on 50,000 doors since he began campaigning for office in 2008. He calls it his "No. 1 priority" as a lawmaker and "the most important thing you can do" as a state representative.

"There are times I've walked into backyard barbecues, birthday parties, baby christenings, you name it," he said. "No matter what the circumstances, people are always appreciative of a chance to meet them personally."

The math for Rep. Schneider is certainly eye-popping: At a normal contact rate, his 50,000th door would mean that in the past three years, Rep. Schneider has personally met and spoken to almost as many voters as he’ll need to win on Election Night.

There are still just under two months for Ohio House Democrats to make their case. Expect every Democratic candidate to meet as many voters face-to-face as possible between now and then.

In her piece on redistricting last week, U.S. News & World Report’s Jessica Rettig made an important observation.

The payoff for winning state legislatures and governorships in these states could be huge, given the long-term savings that drawing safe congressional seats could bring a party. According to the DLCC, state legislative campaigns require far less cash than what is typically necessary for a competitive House race. Since redistricting generally creates safe House seats for the party in charge, national campaigns won't need to spend as much to keep their congressional incumbents in power.

But we’re not the only ones pursuing this line of reasoning. Months ago, Karl Rove was making basically the same point:

The average winner of a competitive House race in 2008 spent $2 million, while a noncompetitive seat can be defended for far less than half that amount. Moving, say, 20 districts from competitive to out-of-reach could save a party $100 million or more over the course of a decade.

Republicans are already claiming that, after November, they’ll be able to draw at least 25 congressional districts that don’t favor them today. So if those 25 seats are currently competitive districts that the Republicans gerrymander to safety, their party apparatus will save at least $25 million in 2012.

That’s $25 million that they can put towards to defeating President Obama’s reelection efforts.

That’s $25 million they can use to try to take the Senate, or win more House seats, or… well, you get the picture.

Elections on both the federal and state levels are becoming more and more expensive, but $25 million isn’t pocket change in any campaign.

And that’s just the savings for one election cycle. The district lines drawn next year set the rules for the next decade. The savings from running in safe districts accrue quickly—to say nothing of the expense to the other side of running in formerly safe seats that have become competitive.

Since state legislative districts vary widely in size from state to state, it’s a little more difficult to discuss the investment value of state races in figures that apply neatly across the board.

But it’s true almost everywhere that winning a state House, Assembly, or Senate race is far less expensive than winning a competitive U.S. House race.

And we’re talking about an investment in one election cycle, rather than costs accruing over the course of a decade. Money spent on state legislative races this fall will result in victories that will secure the legislative majorities required to have a hand in the redistricting process in key states.

So we’re talking about a one-time investment that results in pretty tremendous bang for your buck.

Stakeholders who fail to invest in gaining and defending legislative majorities this cycle are setting themselves up to waste a ridiculous amount of money and resources in the years to come. Anyone who cares about the long-term wellbeing of the Democratic Party knows that this fall, the smart money is in state legislative races.

Part 1 of 2:

A relative handful of Ohio House contests offer Democrats an opportunity to unpack one of the worst GOP gerrymanders in the country, and they offer Republicans a chance to fine-tune their handiwork and wipe away the Democratic gains since 2006.

Last week was a busy one in the campaign to defend the Democrats' narrow majority, underscoring the two-month sprint that's all that remains between now and Election Day.

Democratic House Speaker Armond Budish started things off on a confident note, predicting that his Caucus’ successful legislative effort on job creation and other campaign advantages would allow House Democrats to localize their races and survive a tough climate:

Democrats will do well against the odds based on the strength of a significant fundraising advantage of roughly 3-to-1 and a strong ground game focused on door-to-door campaigning, he said.

"State rep races are local and even though you all know there is a strong headwind this year, we will keep and expand the Democratic majority in the House because we have a strong message of job creation," Budish said. The Beachwood Democrat cited a film tax credit, a renewal of the Third Frontier program and a $100 million expansion of the Venture Capital Fund as job-creating efforts pushed by Democrats.

When told that GOP leaders were already predicting victory in the chamber, Budish gave a characteristically pithy response:

"At the local level, Ohioans understand that we have fought for them, and we've put their interest first," Budish said. "We're hearing that people want common-sense solutions. They don't want extreme ideology."

Talking to reporters, Budish gave the exact measurements of the windows in the speaker's office, suggesting that Minority Leader William G. Batchelder could now stop measuring the curtains and "maybe he can spend time working with us on policy for a change."

That same day, the Dayton Daily News profiled two districts where observers feel Democrats remain on the offensive:

Republican Seth Morgan holds the 36th District seat but is not seeking re-election because he ran for the GOP nomination for auditor and lost. Democrat Carl Fisher, Jr., a Huber Heights school board member, is running against Republican Michael Henne of Clayton, an insurance agency co-owner.

Henne was a GOP “second choice” who won the nomination after frontrunner Joe Ellis had a bar fight, Budish said.

The 72nd is more competitive but Republican incumbent Ross McGregor, who’s seeking re-election, won in 2006 and 2008, great years for Democrats.

Democrat Gregory Krouse, a teacher and president of the Springfield Education Association, is challenging McGregor.

Winning either of these districts would complicate GOP electoral math, but it would also strongly suggest Democrats are doing well enough statewide to retain their majority.

Finally, as if to reinforce Speaker Budish’s original point, Democrats got two pieces of good news for their candidates. First, the GOP nominee in the Columbus-based 25th district withdrew from the race – leaving Democratic nominee Michael Stinziano unopposed this November. Stinziano was already considered the favorite in this race, but one fewer open seat to worry about is always good news for the defending party.

Second, the AFL-CIO has announced the start of its own Get Out the Vote operation targeting 650,000 union households in Ohio:

The Ohio union has established 16 call centers in cities across the state from which voluteers talk nightly with prospective voters about union-friendly candidates. Ohio AFL-CIO, which represents 650,000 workers from 1,600 local unions, also is targeting direct mail and worksite leafleting to union households and members.

Focused on helping the Democrats’ statewide ticket, this effort is also likely to boost down-ticket Democrats in vote-rich swing areas of the state – exactly the areas where swing legislative districts tend to be concentrated.

Part 2 of this series will look at the Democratic House Caucus’ field effort.

Over the weekend, right-wing Republican State Rep. Bill O'Brien dropped a direct mail piece asking Democratic voters to write-in his name on their Democratic primary ballots, where only three Democrats filed for the 4-member Hillsborough County District 4 (though Democrat Kary Jencks is waging a write-in campaign for the 4th ballot slot).

If O’Brien is the top "Democratic" write-in candidate, he’ll be on the ballot as the candidate of both parties. It would be an ingenious ploy, but there’s just one small hiccup – 5 GOP candidates filed for the four ballot slots in this district, meaning someone’s going to be the odd person out.

Cue the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s alert Chairman, Ray Buckley, who responded to O’Brien’s mailer with the following recorded phone call yesterday:

This is State Democratic Chair Ray Buckley calling with the important news that current Republican Bill O'Brien has asked to join the Democratic Party's ticket for the November elections.

If he succeeds tomorrow, we expect Bill O'Brien will embrace the Democratic Party's platform, support President Barack Obama, national health care reform and stand up for gay marriage, and protect a woman's right to choose and our agenda to move NH and America forward.

Once again, we wanted you to know before you vote tomorrow that Bill O'Brien has asked to join the Democratic ticket and our progressive agenda. Thank you so much.

[hat-tip Blue Hampshire]

One presumes that the call only went to registered Republicans, who can only vote in the GOP primary.

Things could still go exactly as O’Brien wants when the votes are counted tonight (giving him both a Democratic and Republican ballot line). But there are two other hilarious possibilities:

O’Brien could win the Democratic ballot line while losing the GOP primary, which would force him to explain his Democratic “conversion” to the Republican base, or

O’Brien could lose both primaries, giving Democrats an open-seat pickup opportunity. The district split 3R-1D in 2008, though Democrats were just 174 votes short of a 2-2 split.

Let’s hope for the latter – and a Kary Jencks write-in win!

If any Democratic legislator anywhere in the country (or any political reporter) thought Republican legislators might play nice and respect the will of the voters this redistricting season, think again.

Virginia, which won’t have state legislative elections again until 2011, already knows which party will have complete control of the redistricting process: neither. But even in a state where everyone knows the Democratically-controlled Senate and the Republican House will have to compromise in order to pass a redistricting plan – because it’s mathematically impossible to pass a plan otherwise – Republicans are already telling the Democrats to take a hike. The Roanoke Times editorial board explains:

House Republican leaders have no interest in working with Senate Democratic leaders.

Virginia lawmakers have had 10 years to fix the way they draw congressional and legislative districts after the U.S. Census. They chose not to. Now, the Republican leadership in the House of Delegates is laying groundwork for one of the most contentious, partisan redistricting seasons in memory. (…)

This year, they knew Democrats would control the Senate and Republicans the House during redistricting, creating the potential for stalemate, but it did not matter. Nor did it matter that Gov. Bob McDonnell on the campaign trail pledged to seek a better way. Not that he pushed for it once in office. They killed bills to overhaul the system.

Still, there was a glimmer of hope. With the chambers divided, maybe compromise could yet emerge.

Last month, the glimmer all but extinguished.

Senate leaders had suggested the two chambers hold joint public hearings on redistricting. That would save taxpayer dollars and help build a working relationship. The House refused. It will hold its own hearings, thank you very much, and the Senate can do whatever it wants.

If the Republicans aren’t even willing to make sure they’re on the same page with the Democrats in a state where no redistricting plan can be enacted without Democratic votes, how will they behave in a state where they can pass a plan entirely on their own?

That’s why redistricting is a top priority for our organization this cycle, and it’s the reason why any Democrat who doesn’t go to the polls this November might be denying themselves a fair vote for the next decade or more.

We were never under any illusions about this – certainly not after the Republicans’ infamous, mid-decade gerrymander of Texas. But anyone still harboring doubts just got the last warning shot they’ll likely see before November.

UPDATE (3:14 PM): The Arizona Capitol Times reports that Steve May has just withdrawn from the race in LD-17.

UPDATE #2 (Tuesday, 10:20 AM): We wonder if this has something to do with May's exit - the Capitol Times is now also reporting that one of May's recruits has been arrested on an outstanding warrant, dropped out of his own race, and then "revoked" his withdrawal minutes later.

A Republican operative and candidate for State Representative in Arizona has admitted to, and even bragged about, recruiting “drifters and homeless people” to run as Green Party candidates in order to siphon votes away from Democrats. Marc Lacey at the New York Times explains the story:

Mr. [Benjamin] Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats. Arizona’s Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors in an effort to have the candidates removed from the ballot, and the Green Party has urged its supporters to steer clear of the rogue candidates. (…)

But Steve May, the Republican operative who signed up some of the candidates along Mill Avenue, a bohemian commercial strip next to Arizona State University, insists that a real political movement has been stirred up that has nothing to do with subterfuge.

“Did I recruit candidates? Yes,” said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. “Are they fake candidates? No way.”

To make his point, Mr. May went by Starbucks, the gathering spot of the Mill Rats, as the frequenters of Mill Avenue are known.

“Are you fake, Benjamin?” he yelled out to Mr. Pearcy, who cried out “No,” with an expletive attached.

In all, Steve May’s brigade includes 11 Green Party “candidates,” most of whom got on the ballot thanks to a little-noticed provision in Arizona law allowing Green Party candidates to qualify with just a single write-in primary vote. No petitions, no filing fee – just their own signature on their own primary ballot.

But lest there’s any confusion about who’s really pulling the strings, some of these candidates have May literally whispering into their ears during campaign speeches:

As Mr. Pearcy went on, Mr. May whispered “focus, focus, focus” into his ear to get him back on track and help prepare him for a debate in early October, which will be televised across the state.

The Green Party, for its part, didn't take the situation lying down. Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic reported last week that the Greens filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court asking for these 11 candidates to be disqualified.

Unfortunately, the court later ruled that most of the candidates may remain as ballot printing begins. But the Green Party did the right thing in acting to protect the integrity of its ballot line, and they are continuing to denounce all 11 candidates and are encouraging Green Party supporters to avoid them in the voting booth.

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the DLCC is kind of a Big Deal.

Jeremy Jacobs makes the point in The Hotline. By winning Democratic majorities in state legislatures, the DLCC arguably laid the groundwork for President Obama’s path to victory in 2008.

Dems have gained majorities in many legislative chambers since 2004 in states that John Kerry lost but that Obama won 4 years later.

These include CO House, CO Senate and NC House in '04. In '06, Dems took control of the IN House, IA House and IA Senate. The following year, they won back the VA Senate. Most recently in '08, Dems took back the NV Senate and OH House.

So of the 9 states that Obama won in '08 that Kerry lost in '04, the Dems had taken back at least one chamber of the state legislature in 7 of them.

You’re welcome.

It’s nice to be recognized for our work in building Democratic infrastructure across the country.

Because that’s what we do. The DLCC builds strategic, accountable legislative programs from the ground up through work with legislative leadership and caucus directors. Among other things, we build the Democratic brand on the local level, run highly targeted field and turnout programs, and groom the “farm team” of tomorrow’s Democratic leaders.

But while the DLCC may be deserving of recognition because of what we’ve done, the real story is what’s at stake for the Obama reelect in state legislative elections this fall.

But for a better indication of how Obama '12 chances, it is worth watching the most competitive state legislature races this fall.

Aided by the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, Dems have made significant gains at the state level. They now hold majorities in 28 state Senates and 32 state Houses.

In their efforts to hold onto those majorities, 7 chambers in 6 states compose what Dems view as their "Danger Zone" this year, and those chambers lie squarely in Obama's re-election roadmap. They are:

CO Senate - Dems hold a 7 seat majority
IN House - Dems hold a 4 seat majority
NV Senate - Dems hold a 3 seat majority
OH House - Dems hold a 7 seat majority
PA House - Dems hold a 6 seat majority
WI Assembly - Dems hold a 6 seat majority
WI Senate - Dems hold a 3 seat majority

These are all states that Obama carried in '08 and he will need to win most of them again in '12 to stay in the White House.

So while redistricting is a significant aspect of what’s at stake in this fall’s state legislative elections, it’s not the only reason to care. Democratic prospects in Congress are incredibly important, but so is getting President Obama reelected.

Via Think Progress comes the story of Tim Ravndal, who was just removed from his perch as President of the Big Sky Tea Party Association following his facebook comments allegedly advocating violence against gays:

On July 23, Ravndal declared his opposition to gay marriage in a Facebook status update. Another user replied: “I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.” Ravndal then responded: “Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?”

Wyoming, of course, was the site of the brutal slaying of University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard in 1998.

As news of Ravndal’s comments spread, it certainly didn’t take long for Montana Republicans to jump in and defend Ravndal’s comments. First up was Kristi Allen-Gailushas, the Republican nominee against Democratic State Representative Mike Menahan:

No matter what you guys say, Tim is a great American and Patriot. He does have a right to say what he wants. I know that he didn’t mean it, but in the heat of his anger with the ACLU might not have realized what he was saying. The people who are in the TEA party movement are called names all of the time. Racist, extreimest….you name it. Tolerance needs to be done on both sides especially the homosexual side. There isn’t any tolerance for people who have a different opinion than yours. If we say yes to gay marriage where does it stop? The people who want to have more than one spouse will be next and that is against the law. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, are we now going to change the definition?

Note to the Montana GOP: when a right-wing ally says something too offensive even for the Tea Party, that’s as good a hint as you’ll ever get that you shouldn’t follow them off the deep end.

Threats or calls for violence are never an acceptable response to normal political questions; accusing people of racism is not the same thing as suggesting they should be murdered; and the 1st Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to keep their job as head of a political organization no matter what they say.

Ravndal at least seems to recognize these three ideas, as he’s walked back his original comments. Allen-Gailushas’s last word on the matter appears to be “The Gay community wants a war….they’ve got one!!”

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

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

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

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

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

[hat-tip Burnt Orange Report]

Ouch.

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

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

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

The Democratic candidate is State Representative Carol Kent.

There’s no place for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hat-tip Kansas Equality Coalition]

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

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

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

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

Wichita police are investigating.