Kentucky GOP state Rep. Wade Hurt announced over the weekend that he was leaving the Republican Party and joining his chamber’s majority Democratic caucus, lifting Democrats to a 59-41 margin.

Continuing a trend we saw elsewhere in the country prior to 2010, Hurt made the switch because of frustration with his GOP colleagues’ narrow focus on a divisive ideological agenda that distracted attention from the needs of Kentucky families:

But he said that during his first session in the General Assembly this year he became disillusioned by the fact that House Republicans got so little legislation passed. He said he decided that if he wanted to adequately represent his district, he needed to switch parties.

Having been a moderate Republican who supports organized labor, Hurt said he will feel at home in the Democratic Party.

Kentucky House Democrats were in a strong position even before Rep. Hurt's switch, since they still enjoy a wide majority after weathering the 2010 cycle with only a few losses.

But Speaker Stumbo nevertheless welcomed his newest caucus member with open arms, though both sides made clear that Hurt made the decision on his own, without any active recruiting by Democratic leaders:

Stumbo said he even asked Hurt about the committees on which he serves, Licensing & Occupations, Labor & Industry, and Tourism, Development & Energy.

“He said he was happy with his committee assignments and didn’t ask for anything,” Stumbo said. “We certainly welcome him into our party and into our caucus and we will do everything that we can to make his transition smooth.”

We also welcome Representative Hurt to the Democratic Party, and we wish him well in his legislative service.

Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia will all hold state legislative elections in 2011. But unlike normal odd-year elections, the battle for these 578 seats comes in a redistricting year, meaning these campaigns will play out in a timeframe significantly compressed by the redistricting schedule.

For now though, many prospective candidates in all four states are keeping the campaign on hold until they find out which district they’ll actually live in when the maps are complete. This is especially true in Virginia, where rapid growth in northern counties makes significant district changes likely:

As candidates declare for the 2011 House of Delegates and state Senate elections, uncertainty hangs in the air. Redistricting leaves many wondering in what district they will be running. (…)

In Virginia, the General Assembly rushes through the process because new districts have to be approved for the looming summer primaries. Once Virginia gets the official data from the census in February or March, they must pass new districts and have it approved by the Department of Justice in a few months. This leaves many potential candidates wondering what their new district will look like.

“It’s a lot of time, it’s a lot of money, and I’m not interested in doing it unless I have a realistic chance,” said Stephen Heretick, a city councilman from Portsmouth who is considering a run for the state Senate in 2011.

While a handful of candidates have announced their intentions to run, the state parties are busy finding candidates to run.

Democrats will be fighting to retain their 22-18 state Senate majority and close the Republican advantage in the state House.

Meanwhile in New Jersey, both parties are preparing for a hard-fought campaign next fall, no matter what the final redistricting plan’s results. And shadowy groups of secret GOP donors are already signaling that they plan to engage:

In the summer, when the governor and Democrats were spatting over a constitutional amendment to create a property-tax cap, a pro-Christie shadow group with a secret donor list mailed fliers into House Speaker Sheila Oliver's Essex County district and Senate President Stephen Sweeney's Gloucester County district. The fliers, sponsored by Reform Jersey Now, asked voters to pressure the legislative leaders into scheduling a vote.

"If that is what we experienced on something as simple as a bill, that was an indication to me to what length this governor and his Reform New Jersey apparatus will go to," Oliver said. "I think they will invest that same level of energy in the elections."

New Jersey Democrats, though, are well positioned to retain their majorities, especially after picking up a state Senate seat in a special election a few weeks ago and suffering a net loss of just one Assembly seat in the 2009 General Election.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alaska, home to the nation’s largest state legislative district (Senate District C, which would stretch from Jacksonville, FL to Minneapolis, MN if superimposed over the continental United States), may be adding 6 new legislators in the next round of redistricting, if a state constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature is approved by voters:

The state Legislature has voted to expand both chambers by 10 percent, by adding another two and four Senate and House seats, respectively. The vote comes as the state sees increasing signs of a population shift from rural areas to bigger cities. It also precedes a coming shift in legislative district boundaries to match population estimates from the latest federal census, which is ongoing.

If the new members are approved by voters, the expectation is that rural areas will maintain the same number of Senators and Representatives, instead of losing some of them to fast-growing Anchorage.

It’s still unclear how the proposal would affect the political balance in the state. Both legislative chambers are competitive, with the Senate tied (though run by a unique coalition of Democrats and Republicans) and Democrats within two seats of tying the State House.

An earlier version of the amendment would have expanded the legislature even further.