Many Republicans in Pennsylvania hope to add their state to the growing list of those with strict voter ID policies in place for the 2012 elections. 

Over the summer, the GOP-controlled Pennsylvania House passed HB 934, a stringent voter ID bill. Earlier this week, a Pennsylvania Senate committee finally passed the legislation out of committee. The State Government Committee amended the bill to accommodate a couple of forms of photo ID not permitted by the House version, but it still makes voting in Pennsylvania substantially more difficult for citizens who do not possess state-issued photo identification, who are often poor, minority, or elderly voters. 

Even the Republican Chair of that committee admitted that this voter ID bill addresses a nonexistent problem. 

Senate State Government Committee Chairman Charles McIlhinney said he has seen no proof that people are casting illegal ballots… "It was put upon us and asked for by the governor and by the House, who passed the bill, and they asked me to take it up," McIlhinney, R-Bucks, said after the committee vote. 

After HB 934 passed out of the State Government Committee on Monday, the bill was on track to pass the full Senate before the legislature’s final adjournment for the year. 

But instead of voting on the measure on Wednesday, December 14, the GOP-controlled state Senate punted HB 934 to another committee. 

The Pennsylvania Senate will reconvene on January 3, 2012. According to Sen. McIlhinny, “[s]ending a bill to Corbett's desk by the beginning of February would ensure the changes are in place for next year's general election.” 

Which leaves less than a month for this reprehensible legislation to pass out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, pass the full Senate, then return to the House for a full vote. 

Six states with GOP-controlled legislatures and GOP governors (Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) passed strict voter ID laws this year, bringing the total number of states that will require a photo ID to vote in the 2012 elections to fifteen, according to NCSL. 

We’ll know by next spring whether Pennsylvania will bring that total to sixteen.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker behind the sudden push allocate that state’s electoral votes by congressional district suffers no loneliness as he promotes his plot. 

GOP Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi’s proposal to gerrymander the Electoral College is also being pushed by All Votes Matter, a Pennsylvania nonprofit. 

According to Pennsylvania’s Capitolwire (subscription required), All Votes Matter says it has already spent $180,000 to support Sen. Pileggi’s proposal. A spokesman for the group added that AVM will spend at least another $100,000—more if they feel the need to mount a broadcast ad campaign to support the measure. Two groups with close ties to state Senate Republicans also will be lobbying for the bill. 

All Votes Matter is reportedly working to line up “prominent academics and Pennsylvanians” to support the bill—and perhaps even testify at the October State Government Committee hearing. Sen. Pileggi plans for the bill to pass through the legislature by the end of the year, enabling it to take effect in time for the 2012 presidential election. 

While GOP lawmakers aren’t necessarily falling into line behind their legislative leaders, several have indicated a level of openness to being lobbied. 

“I have no firm opinion at this point.  I think it’s fascinating but I think we need to continue that discussion,” said [Republican state Senator Edwin] Erickson. 

… 

State Rep. Todd Stephens (R-Montgomery) told the Glenside News Globe Times Chronicle that he also needs to mull over the plan before making a decision for or against it. 

Republicans outside of the statehouse are less receptive. Several Republican members of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation have expressed dismay over the electoral vote proposal, fearful that its implementation would lead to Democrats working harder to win their marginally Republican House districts. 

Republican state leaders have given no indication that these members’ concerns are swaying them in the least. What political capital these Representatives have with their GOP state legislators is probably already being spent on redistricting. State lawmakers owe their members of Congress precious little… if anything at all. If this proposal fails, Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation will be able to take scant credit. 

As we await the production of the actual legislation that would codify this electoral vote-rigging scheme (with a hearing set for October, a bill will emerge any day now), another Pennsylvania politico weighed in on the proposal. 

Dave Weigel caught up with Pennsylvanian and presidential candidate Rick Santorum this week and asked for his thoughts on the Republicans’ proposal to give some of the state’s electoral votes to candidates winning individual congressional districts. Santorum’s response clearly demonstrated his understanding of how GOP gerrymandering impacts such a system. 

"Certainly, from the standpoint of a Republican, it's a winner," Santorum said. "Republicans will come out ahead in Pennsylvania in every election. The way Democrats win, they have two big cities with huge concentrations of voters -- and then overwhelm the rest of the state." 

This is true! Because the votes of urban Democrats count as much as the votes of suburban Republicans, Democrats are often able to win Pennsylvania by getting more people to choose their candidates. Santorum, musing a bit about ways to gerrymander the state, pointed out that the current district map included a lot of swing seats. Republicans could maximize their vote by pouring all urban Democrats into a few districts. 

"All of a sudden, a Republican can win -- and would probably routinely win -- all but three or four congressional districts in Pennsylvania," he said. "It would turn it from a state Democrats rely on, as part of the base, to a state that they're gonna lose under almost any scenario." 

So with hundreds of thousands of dollars of lobbying and support behind it and few GOP state legislators staunchly opposed to it, the Pennsylvania Republicans’ proposal to double their gerrymandering fun could actually become the law. As the statehouse GOP redraws congressional districts to give as many seats to Republicans as possible, they may also be determining how many electoral votes their presidential candidate receives. 

Meanwhile, the Nebraska GOP works to ensure that their state never gives an electoral vote to a Democrat again, and Republican legislatures across the country promote voter suppression. We have to wonder if there’s any length to which statehouse Republicans won’t go to rig next year’s election.

Even as the Pennsylvania GOP pushes its proposal to gerrymander the Electoral College by allocating electoral votes according to gerrymandered congressional districts, Nebraska Republicans are demonstrating the naked partisanship of this measure by pushing for just the opposite. 

The GOP in Nebraska is trying to return to a winner-take-all system after President Obama became the first Democrat in 44 years to take one of the state’s electoral votes. Nebraska currently allocates its five electoral votes in the manner Pennsylvania Republicans are proposing, three by congressional district and two to the winner of the state’s popular vote. 

Nebraska Republicans attempted to make the switch earlier this year, but the bill stalled in committee after one GOP legislator opposed it, resulting in a tie vote. Now the state GOP leadership is trying to pressure him—and any other opponents—by threatening to withhold support in the next election. 

The Nebraska Republican Party is showing a startling new level of desperation in its efforts to force the Nebraska Legislature to change the state's [E]lectoral [C]ollege vote during the 2012 legislative session.  At the September meeting of its State Central Committee, a resolution is being proposed that would block any support for State Senators who vote against changing the casting of Nebraska's electoral college votes to "winner-take-all." 

Objective Conservative recently published the language of this resolution:  

Whereas Nebraska is one of only two states that award electoral votes based on the presidential winner of congressional districts,.... 

Whereas it is of the highest priority and interest to the Nebraska Republican Party and the citizens of Nebraska that the state returns to a "winner-takes-all" electoral vote plan, 

Whereas the Nebraska Republican Party supports legislation that returns the state to the "winner-takes-all" basis, 

And, whereas the Nebraska Republican Party believes that the "winner-takes-all" issue is a litmus test for those who would claim to be Republicans and seek the support of the Nebraska Republican Party, 

Be it resolved that the Nebraska Republican Party will not support in any manner, financial or otherwise, any state senator who opposes the return of the state to the "winner-takes-all" electoral vote plan either by failing to vote for such in committee or on the floor of the legislature. 

The measure will be presented and voted on at the State Central Committee meeting this Saturday, September 17. 

Pennsylvania Republicans are tossing around claims of “fairness” and “reform” as they attempt to deliver electoral votes to a Republican in a state that’s given them to Democrats since 1992. But the Nebraska GOP’s visceral reaction to giving just one of their electoral votes to a Democrat in 2008 reveals Republicans’ true motives: to funnel as many electoral votes the GOP presidential candidate as they possibly can, by any means necessary. 

The Pennsylvania GOP’s proposal to allocate its electoral votes by congressional district may sound outrageous, even absurd. 

Splitting Pennsylvania’s electoral votes flies in the face of more than 200 years of political history. It’s an obvious and desperate attempt by the state GOP to deliver some of the state’s electoral votes to the Republican nominee for the first time since 1988, even if President Obama wins a majority of the state’s popular vote. 

And it may very well come to pass. 

Despite some shouts of Republican discontent, the GOP leaders of the state House, the state Senate, and Republican Governor Tom Corbett are all publicly endorsing the measure. 

Legislation is forthcoming. GOP Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi has already sent a memo to his fellow senators requesting co-sponsorship of the bill. 

A simple majority vote in each chamber would pass the measure on to the Governor’s desk for signature. A law allocating electoral votes by congressional district could be on the books by Halloween. 

A haunting prospect, indeed. Nick Baumann explains. 

The GOP controls both houses of the state legislature plus the governor's mansion—the so-called "redistricting trifecta"—in Pennsylvania. Congressional district maps are adjusted after every census, and the last one just finished up. That means Pennsylvania Republicans get to draw the boundaries of the state's congressional districts without any input from Democrats. Some of the early maps have leaked to the press, and Democrats expect that the Pennsylvania congressional map for the 2012 elections will have 12 safe GOP seats compared to just 6 safe Democratic seats. 

Under the Republican plan, if the GOP presidential nominee carries the GOP-leaning districts but Obama carries the state, the GOP nominee would get 12 electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, but Obama would only get eight—six for winning the blue districts, and two (representing the state's two senators) for winning the state. 

So even if President Obama wins the popular vote in Pennsylvania, because of 12 gerrymandered GOP congressional districts, he could easily receive fewer than half of the state’s electoral votes. 

For the first time, Republicans are trying to extend the effect of gerrymandering beyond congressional races and into presidential elections. Unsatisfied with gerrymandering the state legislature and their congressional delegation, the Pennsylvania GOP is trying to gerrymander the Electoral College. 

And why couldn’t such a plan be executed in other states with Republican-controlled legislatures and governors’ mansions that tend to give their electoral votes to Democratic presidential candidates? Wisconsin and Michigan come to mind instantly. Wisconsin’s electoral votes haven’t gone to a Republican since 1984, and the last time Michigan electors went GOP was 1988. 

With a razor-thin majority in the state Senate (16D/17R) and the memory of the recalls triggered by previous political overreach fresh in their minds, the Wisconsin GOP seems unlikely to push a proposal as extreme as allocating their electoral votes by congressional district. 

But what’s to stop Michigan? 

Republicans have double-digit majorities in the state House and Senate and control of the governor’s mansion. The new GOP-drawn congressional district map creates as many as nine districts favorable to Republicans. If a Pennsylvania-style electoral vote allocation bill passed in Michigan, President Obama could win a majority of the popular vote, but because of GOP gerrymandering, could only receive seven electoral votes. 

The Michigan situation is purely hypothetical. There’s been no noise from the GOP there to suggest they’re interested in such a proposal—yet. 

But in a close presidential election, the 12-8 electoral vote split in Pennsylvania alone could be enough to sway results. 

And unable to earn it the way candidates of all parties have seen fit for more than two centuries, the Republicans could gerrymander their way into the presidency. 

The Republican leaders of Pennsylvania’s legislature want to change how the state allocates its electoral votes. 

Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi wants to allocate the 20 electoral votes Pennsylvania will have in the next election according to who wins each of 18 congressional districts, plus two more for whoever wins the statewide popular vote, rather than the winner-take-all system the state now uses.

…

Asked whether Pileggi's proposal would change Pennsylvania's status as one of the country's biggest swing states, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said, "There's no doubt about it." 

Still, he's a fan. 

"We think it has a lot of positive merit," said Turzai, R-Bradford Woods. "It's going to be carefully vetted (in the Senate). I myself am very positive." 

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review examined how such an arrangement would have affected the 2008 presidential election. 

In 2008, for instance, when Pennsylvania had 21 electoral votes, Sen. John McCain won 10 congressional districts to then-Sen. Barack Obama's 9, but Obama won the state by 620,000 votes. Under Pileggi's proposal, Obama would've gotten the two statewide electors, for a net win over McCain of one electoral vote.

Currently Maine and Nebraska are the only states that allocate their electoral votes by congressional district. 

Electoral vote proposals like this one have cropped up in states before – and went nowhere. What makes this worth watching is that the majority leaders of both legislative chambers have gone on the record in support of it. 

Pennsylvania’s GOP-controlled legislature is currently in the process of redrawing the state’s 18 congressional districts. The outcome is expected to favor Republicans to the tune of at least 12 GOP-leaning seats, and perhaps going as far as producing 13 or 14 Republican congressional districts. 

So even if President Obama wins a majority of the Pennsylvania popular vote next year, about a dozen electoral votes could still go to his Republican opponent—more than enough to flip an election. 

The potential effect of the Pennsylvania GOP’s electoral vote proposal on the outcome of 2012 is staggering, to say the least.

Former President Bill Clinton addressed one of the most pressing issues facing the electorate in a speech on Wednesday. 

The issue is the very ability of that electorate to cast ballots. 

From Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn: 

“I can’t help thinking since we just celebrated the Fourth of July and we’re supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time,” Clinton said at Campus Progress’s annual conference in Washington. 

“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today,” Clinton added. 

President Clinton’s assertions regarding new restrictive voting measures in states across the country are bold, even jarring, but succeed in spotlighting this critical issue. 

He specifically called out Republican proposals in Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire that restrict ballot box access in various ways. 

In Florida, the new voting restrictions cover both casting and registering to cast ballots. Not only will all organizations that wish to conduct voter registration drives (such as the League of Women Voters) be required to register with the state elections board, but also each person who registers voters will be required to sign and file an oath with the board. Additionally, the early voting period is reduced from 12 days to eight. Frank Cerabino of the Palm Beach Post makes an interesting observation about that part of the law:

On line 2409 of the legislation, the part that establishes the time period of early voting, it had been law that in elections with federal races, the early voting period was to end on the "2nd day before an election."

The new law changes that to the third day before the election.

What possible difference could that one day make?

Well, the second day before an election is a Sunday. And those who have been combing over the Florida results during the last presidential election discovered that nearly a third of all the early voters on that final Sunday were black.

In Ohio, legislation passed just last week by the GOP-controlled legislature will effectively reduce voters’ access to the ballot box. As we previously noted, restrictive provisions of this bill include:

• Cuts the early voting period by more than half: instead of 35 days, voters will only be able to cast ballots on 12 of the 17 days prior to the election
• Eliminates early voting on Sundays
• Permits early voting on Saturdays from only 8 a.m. to noon
• Cuts early voting by mail from 35 days to 21
• Eliminates the weeklong period during which voters could register and cast ballots at the same time (“Golden Week”)
• Prohibits boards of elections from mailing absentee ballot forms without receiving specific requests (forms are currently mailed to all registered voters)
• Prohibits boards of elections from paying return postage to encourage completion of absentee voter forms
• Eliminates local control, preventing boards of elections from adjusting poll hours and taking other previously permissible measures to prevent long lines and other issues seen in the 2004 elections 

The New Hampshire bill, which was vetoed by the Governor but may still be overridden by the heavily GOP-controlled legislature, requires voters to present state or federal government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot.

President Clinton surely faced time constraints, but his list of states with GOP legislatures pushing regressive voting legislation could have extended far beyond those three.

Maine’s Republican-controlled statehouse revoked the state’s long-standing policy to allow eligible voters to register at the polls on Election Day before casting ballots.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker and the state GOP slammed a voter ID bill through the legislature this spring in a desperate attempt to move the goalposts for the upcoming recall elections.

In North Carolina, the Governor vetoed a voter ID bill that would have cost state taxpayers $1.4 million and could have disenfranchised the 147,100 active black voters in the state who do not have photo ID.

In Pennsylvania, the GOP-controlled House has passed legislation requiring presentation of government-issued photo ID to vote. If it passes the Republican Senate, the Republican Governor is almost certain to sign it.

In Missouri, the Governor vetoed the voter ID bill passed by the Republican-controlled legislature. So the state GOP bypassed her by approving an amendment to the state constitution that would have the same effect. The amendment is slated to appear on the ballot for Missouri voters’ approval this fall.

The Brennan Center for Justice found in a 2006 study that 11% of U.S. citizens do not possess any form of government-issued photo ID. Civil rights groups assert that minority and low-income voters constitute an outsized portion of that group and would inevitably be disenfranchised by these voter ID laws.

Add that to the reduction of the time available to cast ballots states like Florida and Ohio, and we could be looking at a presidential electorate in 2012 that’s missing large chunks of what made Barack Obama’s victory possible in 2008—not to mention the inevitable effects of voter suppression all the way down the ballot.

President Clinton has sounded the alarm on a critical issue. Republicans’ only defense seems to be raising the specter of virtually nonexistent voter fraud and “illegal voting.”

Actually, until recently it was illegal to make voting more difficult for eligible citizens.

What a difference a Democratic majority (or even a tie) makes.

Unlike North Carolina (R House, R Senate), Tennessee (RHouse, R Senate), Wisconsin (R House, R Senate), Arizona (R House, R Senate), Michigan (R House, R Senate), and Missouri (R House, R Senate), which have all voted to cut unemployment benefits, the Oregon legislature (Tied House, D Senate) voted to extend them. Last week marked the start of the Oregon Emergency Benefits program, which provides the unemployed with an additional six weeks of benefits.

Huffington Post’s Arthur Delaney has the details: 

People laid off through no fault of their own are eligible for up to 99 weeks of aid in 25 states. But last month, Oregon lawmakers gave the long-term unemployed an additional six weeks of benefits. That means that in Oregon, where the unemployment rate stands tall at 10 percent, so-called "99ers" -- people who've burned through all 99 weeks without finding work -- can now theoretically become "105ers."

…For those who receive maximum aid, the benefits cycle like this: The state initially provides up to 26 weeks and the federal government provides the rest through two programs. The first is Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which provides up to 53 weeks of benefits broken into four "tiers," and the other is the Extended Benefits program, which provides the final 20 weeks. (Recent efforts to provide more weeks of federal benefits have stalled.) The programs can combine to provide fewer than 99 weeks depending on a state's unemployment rate.

Compare this to the cuts Republican-controlled legislatures have been making to unemployment benefits:

At the same time Oregon is taking steps to increase aid, other states are effectively cutting it. Several are allowing the federal Extended Benefits program to expire by choosing not to update the arcane "trigger" used to determine a state's EB eligibility. A high unemployment rate is one condition; the other is that the rate must be 10 percent higher than in either of the two previous years. When it reauthorized the federal unemployment benefit programs in December, Congress invited states to modify their triggers to encompass an additional previous year, since unemployment rates in most states have risen dramatically from what they were three years ago but have held relatively steady over the past two years.

North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin let the program die on April 16, and the Arizona State Legislature has adjourned for the year without taking up the issue. Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. are expected to "trigger off" EB come May.

Lawmakers in Michigan and Missouri acted to preserve EB, but at the same time they cut state benefits to 20 weeks, making them the only states that provide fewer than 26 weeks for newly unemployed people. Twenty weeks will be all that remain once the federal programs expire in January, unless Congress decides to reauthorize them, which is an open question.

So while Republican-controlled state legislatures are busy union busting, pushing birther bills, fighting the nonexistent threat of sharia law, or authorizing the use of gold as legal tender, Democratic state legislatures are actually helping people.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2010

Contact: Carolyn Fiddler
202.449.6754
fiddler@dlcc.org

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee’s Board of Directors met today to elect leadership for the coming year. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal was elected to his fifth term as Chair of the DLCC. Nevada Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford will serve as the DLCC’s Vice Chair, and New Hampshire Sen. Sylvia Larsen will become the Board Secretary. Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Gerber was reelected Treasurer. Virginia House Democratic Leader Ward Armstrong will remain Finance Chair.

New Board members include California Speaker John Perez, Delaware House Majority Whip Valerie Longhurst, Ohio House Democratic Leader Armond Budish, Michigan House Democratic Floor Leader Kate Segal, and Missouri House Democratic Leader Michael Talboy.

"The election of this leadership team marks an important step forward for the DLCC,” said DLCC Executive Director Michael Sargeant. “As we reflect on the challenges and successes of the past cycle and plan for the 2011 and 2012 state legislative elections, this Board of Directors will help Democrats across the country continue to fight for the issues that matter.”

"I am honored to continue my leadership of the DLCC as we work to elect Democratic state legislators nationwide,” added DLCC Chair and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Gronstal. “Democrats in statehouses will continue our hard work to reverse the damage our states have suffered from Republican policies by continuing our efforts to create and save jobs while balancing state budgets. In tough times Democratic legislators will continue to provide steady leadership and make the wise investments needed to move our states forward.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 13, 2010

Contact: Carolyn Fiddler
202.449.6754
fiddler@dlcc.org

Today Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Executive Director Michael Sargeant unveiled the list of state legislative campaigns that received the most votes from grassroots supporters across the country.

“While we originally planned to release a list of 10 Grassroots Essential Races, the sheer volume of votes we received prompted us to expand this roster of winning campaigns to 15,” said Sargeant. “This level of excitement among our supporters is great news for us as we enter the home stretch of this crucial election cycle.”

The DLCC revealed its list of 40 Essential Races last week. Some of the selected races are those expected 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.

With over 6,000 state legislative races on ballots across the country this November, 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 races that will be most significant in 2010. At just 55 contests, the full 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.

"The Essential Races selected by our grassroots supporters represent only a few of the races deserving special attention,” explained Sargeant. “Thousands of Democrats are running professionalized, localized campaigns for state legislature in competitive races across the country, and the thousands of nominations we received demonstrate that our base is energized and engaged in this election.”

The list of Grassroots Essential Races contains contests from the states of Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas, to name only a few.

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.