A campaign embezzlement scandal has now cost a Maine state Representative not one, but two jobs on the public payroll.

Two weeks ago, GOP state Rep. David Burns resigned his position on the town of Alfred’s Board of Selectmen, after the Maine Ethics Commission found Burns guilty of, quote, “mind-boggling” ethics violations and referred the matter for criminal prosecution:

Ethics commission chairman Walter McKee, during the November hearing, called Burns’ actions “mind-boggling.”

“I certainly have never seen anything at this level in terms of severity,” said McKee at the hearing.

As well as finding Burns guilty of violating campaign finance laws, the ethics commission referred the matter to the attorney general’s office for possible prosecution.

This week, the second shoe fell for Rep. Burns, who elected to resign his seat in the Maine House once it became apparent that criminal prosecution was unavoidable. House Minority Leader Emily Cain stressed the seriousness of the charges and the real damage they could do to Maine’s unique system of clean elections:

“The Clean Elections system is not an ATM for lawmakers and it shouldn’t be treated that way,” Cain said. “The system has been effective in keeping special interests out of elections and any abuse of it must be addressed swiftly.”

She added, “If Burns was a member of my caucus, I would have asked him to resign immediately once the ethics commission found him in violation of ethics law and the matter was referred to the attorney general for a criminal investigation.”

Rep. Burns’ alleged misdeeds might have gone unnoticed had his campaign finance reports not been randomly selected for post-election auditing. Once they were, certain discrepancies immediately caught ethics watchdogs’ attention.

His reports listed mileage reimbursements (paid to himself) for driving 4,289 miles – which is the rough equivalent of driving from Burns’ Alfred, Maine home to Moscow. That distance also “significantly exceeds the claim of any other House candidate,” according to the Ethics Commission, including candidates with districts far larger than Burns’ 20-mile-across 138th District.

Ethics Commission investigators dug deeper, and they quickly “determined that Rep. Burns spent at least $2,500 of public funds for personal purposes and that expenditures totaling at least $1,295 were falsely reported in his campaign finance reports.” As a Clean Elections candidate, those funds originally came from the taxpayers, as part of the Maine Clean Elections Act, which makes Burns’ alleged actions even more egregious.

Burns’ 138th district – which he won by fewer than 200 votes in 2010 – will likely be filled by a special election.

[h/t Dirigo Blue]

It’s a new year, but the story is the same when it comes to Democratic performance in special elections across the country: since March 1st, 2011, our candidates are running an average of 6% ahead of where Democrats finished in the exact same districts in 2010.

The usual exclusions apply: We exclude districts where one major party failed to field a candidate this year or in 2010; districts where Independent candidates won enough votes to skew the comparison; districts which weren’t up in 2010; and districts where deceased candidates remained on the ballot.

That leaves 23 districts we can legitimately describe as offering an apples-to-apples comparison. This is too many to list individually, but they can be grouped in three basic categories: Strongly Democratic, Strongly Republican, and Swing Seats:

Most ominously for the GOP, Democrats are making their biggest gains in swing districts (those where Democrats won at least 40% but no more than 60% of the vote in 2010). Democrats, in fact, are now not only winning the average swing district in blowout fashion, but they swept all eight of the swing seat special elections that were included in the analysis above, picking up four previously Republican-held seats in the process.

Democrats are also showing remarkable progress in strongly Republican areas that gave Democrats less than 40% of the vote in 2010. Democrats actually came within 2.5% of winning two such districts, where the previous Democratic nominees had lost by more than 30 points. If that trend holds, there are a lot of GOP state legislators in supposedly safe seats who could be in for a nasty surprise this November.

But while this apples-to-apples comparison is what we consider the most useful, there’s one more significant data point we became aware of this week: Democrats are now winning the average special election everywhere, a stunning turnaround compared to races prior to March 1st.

The numbers below represent every contested special election, regardless of how useful each individual data point is, relying instead on the Law of Large Numbers to give us a snapshot of Democratic performance. If there was a Democratic and Republican candidate in any one special election since November 2010 (or an Independent who had a respectable showing), the race is included in the analysis below:

These raw numbers reveal a significant gain by Democrats since March 1st but an even more dramatic flight from the GOP. Democrats have pulled marginally ahead, completing almost a 20-point net turnaround from last spring, when the average race resulted in a blowout GOP win.

Most importantly, though, it’s now the Democrats who are gaining seats – we've picked up six since March 1st, and we've only lost two to the Republicans in that same time period. Which means we have every reason to look forward to the elections this fall.

State-level Republicans just can’t help themselves when it comes to Paul Ryan’s Medicare bill – you know, the one the conservative Wall Street Journal said “would essentially end Medicare” – and Virginia’s Ben Loyola is the latest GOP candidate to pledge his support for the idea.

But Loyola, running in the competitive 6th state Senate district, went even further than most Tea Party candidates. Not only is there “a lot to like about the Ryan plan,” according to Loyola, but the only problem he saw was that ending Medicare as we know it “didn’t go far enough:”

Ryan, R-Wisconsin, became the House GOP's point person on the budget after Republicans retook control of the chanber following the Nov. 2010 elections. He offered a budget plan that included austere cuts to the federal budget and a plan to revamp Medicare which would essentially end the program.

In a web chaton dailypress.com Tuesday, Loyola was asked by a reader if he supported Ryan's budget plan.

“Actually, there was a lot to like about the Ryan plan, although with the problems we face in Washington, DC, some say it didn't go far enough. I'm sympathetic to that point of view," Loyola responded.

Virginia Democrats quickly put Loyola’s comments in their proper context. Job creation is clearly the top issue in this November’s elections, but Virginia’s struggling middle class will not be helped by a plan that could throw tens of millions of seniors into crushing poverty:

“It’s bad enough that Ben Loyola embraces Paul Ryan’s Tea Party plan to end Medicare as we know it, but saying it doesn't go far enough is outrageous,” said DPVA Executive Director David Mills. “What other cuts on the backs of working families would Ben Loyola require before the Ryan plan goes far enough for him?

Ultimately, though, Loyola’s comments are just a symptom of a larger problem vexing Virginia Republicans: a slate of Tea Party state Senate candidates who are extreme and out of touch, pretty much across the board.

This week saw two major developments in Arkansas’ 9th state Senate district. First, on Tuesday, Democratic state Rep. Tracy Pennartz formally announced her challenge to incumbent GOP Senator “Speedy” Bruce Holland (more on that in a minute), giving Democrats a top-tier candidate for this conservative-leaning district:

During her public service as a State Representative, Pennartz co-sponsored part of the largest tax cut in Arkansas history which has cut the grocery tax by hundreds of millions of dollars and she is committed to “finishing the job.” In the 2011 legislative session, Pennartz voted for more than $35 million in tax cuts to provide tax relief for small business owners and hard-working Arkansas families.

Due to her strong legislative record, Representative Pennartz is a recipient of the "Legislative Award" from the Mental Health Council of Arkansas and the Arkansas Veterans of Foreign Wars. Other awards include the "Distinguished Legislator Award" from the Arkansas Municipal Association and the "Friend Of Education" Award from the Fort Smith Classroom Association.

But now Holland, who also faces a potentially bitter GOP primary, is in the news again, albeit for a vastly different reason.

His trial was yesterday:

Trial is set for Thursday afternoon for a state lawmaker charged with leading police on a high speed chase last January.

State Senator Bruce Holland of Greenwood allegedly hit speeds of up to 100 miles an hour as he led Perry County Sheriff’s Deputy Ray Byrd on a more than 20-mile chase. Holland admits he was speeding, but claims he didn’t realize there was a police car behind him.

Not only was Holland convicted yesterday of fleeing from police, but the Senator has already allegedly violated a judge's order that he appear for fingerprinting.

It remains to be seen whether headlines like “state lawmaker charged with leading police on a high speed chase” will be fatal to Senator Holland’s career, but they are sure to put an otherwise conservative-leaning district in play for the Democrats next fall.

It’s been three months since we last wrote about the startling trend of Democrats vastly overperforming in special elections compared to how they did last fall in the same districts. But rather than evening out over time, that trend has actually solidified.

With the most recent elections added, Democratic special election candidates are still performing about 9% better than the Democratic candidates who ran in the exact same districts in 2010 – a figure that should disturb Republicans everywhere.

Our model has remained the same, as do the excluded categories. Districts where only one major party fielded candidates in 2010 or in the recent special (14 races); districts which were not up for election in 2010 (12 races); districts where a third party candidate won enough votes to skew the result in either year (2 races); and districts where one major-party candidate died before the election but remained on the ballot (1 race) are all excluded. March 1st remains our cutoff date because those were the first elections after the backlash against GOP anti-worker legislation began in earnest.

That leaves 11 elections in 7 states since March 1st:

*Denotes new addition

For the first time, we have a race in the Deep South that provides a true comparison to 2010 – and the Democratic candidate overperformed at about the national average, despite the district voting nearly 3-1 Republican in 2010. We also now know that Jennifer Daler’s stunning win in New Hampshire was no fluke, as a massive swing in the electorate has handed yet another GOP seat there to the Democrats.

The five Democratic victories in the Wisconsin recalls are just further evidence of this trend, though that data doesn’t fit our model (none of the recall-eligible districts were up for election in 2010).

Fortunately, it doesn’t have to. Because on average, the Democratic candidates in Wisconsin recalls performed almost exactly as well as the Democratic candidates who ran in these districts in 2008, a Democratic wave election. And in that wave election, Democrats only won three of these nine seats; Democrats won the majority of them this time around, even while competing on conservative turf:

*Districts 2 and 14 were uncontested in 2008

The 2008 election left Democratic majorities in 60 legislative chambers. If Democrats are performing as well now as they were in that election – and in fact winning additional seats lost in that election, as is the case - then Republican state legislators across the country have good reason to be worried.

SD-02 (Cowles): Robert Cowles hasn’t faced questions about his stock holdings since 2008, when he campaigned as a “family values” conservative and then tried to obscure his significant investment in a nationwide chain of strip clubs (he listed the company simply as “Rick” on GAB disclosure forms). Now facing recall, Cowles is getting proactive – by voting to make it impossible to access disclosure forms like his without physically traveling to GAB headquarters in Madison to view them.

SD-08 (Darling): Alberta Darling stirred up questions and controversy over a recent fundraiser with infamous GOP Congressman Paul “the plan essentially ends Medicare” Ryan. We already know Darling supported Scott Walker’s attack on working families, but does she support Paul Ryan’s attack on seniors’ health care as well? (Yes, it turns out; she does.)

SD-14 (Olsen): Protesters delivered Luther Olsen’s “report card” in Portage, Wisconsin last week, and unsurprisingly, the Senator appears to have flunked Compassion 101. Attendees denounced Olsen specifically for his votes that financially punish seniors, as well as for his abysmal record of constituent service.

SD-18 (Hopper): Randy Hopper was by far the most egregious alleged campaign ethics violator among three Senators hit with ethics complaints by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Hopper allegedly failed to disclose the employer/occupation of donors who collectively gave his campaign nearly $43,000. For comparison, the next-worst violator was Republican Dan Kapanke, who allegedly “only” had $6,100 missing the required information.

In one of the GOP’s most blatantly personal gerrymandering moves so far, Virginia Republicans dismantled DLCC Treasurer and state House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong’s Martinsville-based 10th District, splitting it into several new districts with a GOP incumbent in each of them.

But Leader Armstrong announced yesterday that rather than taking the path of least resistance, he will be challenging Republican Charles Poindexter in the 9th District, where Leader Armstrong’s family roots go back over 160 years:

Anyone who wants to run for the House of Delegates should be able to state why. There are many challenges facing Franklin, Henry and Patrick counties. I believe I have the experience, the leadership and the energy to help find solutions to our problems. And I will continue to fight til the cows come home for a fair shake for hard-working families in our area.

So in announcing my bid for reelection I've come back to my roots. To a place that meant so much to me as a boy. No one has to tell me how to find the 77 Restaurant. Or Callaway or Snow Creek or Penhook or Boone's Mill. Quite a few people in my old district have urged me to continue to represent them..that they don't want to lose my voice in Richmond. I have listened.

Much of the newly constituted 9th house district is the old 10th house district. It contains western Henry, which I have represented for 20 years and Patrick County, which I have represented for 10 years. Moreover I represented southern Franklin County in my first 10 years in the House which included Ferrum and Henry. So despite what anyone might say over the coming months, this area is home. I was born here and raised here, and my family's roots in this area go back over 160 years.

How gutsy a call is this? Very. The 9th District is one of the most conservative of the districts which gained parts of the old 10th.

But Del. Poindexter has big reasons to worry about this upcoming race, starting with his own weak performance in previous elections. Poindexter dramatically underperformed the last time he faced major-party opposition, winning with just 46% of the vote in 2007 (John McCain dominated that district 62%-38% just a year later).

Leader Armstrong also begins the race with a pocket of strength in Patrick and Henry Counties, which he already represents in the old 10th District. Armstrong outperformed his district-wide total in both counties in 2009, winning them with nearly 58% of the vote in a challenging election year. And the northern half of the new 9th District, Franklin County, was the Democratic nominee’s strongest county in that 2007 race, as he nearly matched Poindexter’s 46%.

Together, these results suggest that Republicans will need more than the stroke of a pen to keep Ward Armstrong down.

Special elections are on everyone’s mind this week as voters go to the polls for the Corwin-Davis-Hochul election in Western New York. But whatever happens in that race, a nationwide surge in Democratic performance is unmistakable.

The DLCC tracks every state legislative special election in the country. In the last three months, we’ve noticed a startling trend: Since March 1st, Democratic candidates have overperformed in almost every similar special election compared to the Democrats who ran in the same districts in 2010.

This is a truly stunning turnaround. The conventional wisdom says that all else being equal (though it never is), a lower-profile election will produce a more Republican electorate. Therefore, a presidential year like 2008 should see better Democratic performance than a midterm like 2010, which in turn should see better Democratic performance than an odd-year special election.

But ever since the radicalism of the GOP's assault on working families had a chance to sink in nationally, we’ve begun to see the opposite. Democratic special election candidates are now performing about 9.7% better than the Democratic candidates who ran in the exact same districts in 2010.

To get useful data, we obviously can’t include districts that produce an “apples-to-Volvos” sort of comparison. Therefore, we have to ignore districts where only one major party fielded candidates in 2010 or in the recent special (10 races); districts which were not up for election in 2010 (3 races); districts where a third party candidate won enough votes to skew the result in either year (2 races); and districts where one major-party candidate died before the election but remained on the ballot (1 race – and a long story).

That leaves 8 elections in 6 states since March 1st:

As you can see, the character and location of these districts were all over the map. Two were overwhelmingly Democratic in 2010; three were overwhelmingly Republican; and three were swing seats. The West, Midwest, and Northeast are all represented. Democrats improved their performance in every district except the Massachusetts seat, which held mostly steady.

And most importantly for prognosticators, Democrats actually won all three of the swing districts. There is also a rough, directly proportional relationship between the competitiveness of the district and the magnitude of the Democratic gain. The change in Democratic performance in swing districts (D+12% to D+19%) was far higher than it was for either party's safe seats (R+1% to D+8%). If this trend continues through the election cycle, Democrats are on pace for a dramatic turnaround.

As the Tea Party and GOP leaders continue to pursue extreme right-wing legislative agendas, any Republican state legislator who values his or her job needs to stop pandering and start pondering: If my Democratic opponent wins an extra 10-15% of the vote in the next election, will I still have a job?

Likewise, Republicans have a similar question to ask if they represent safe districts but enjoy life in the majority: how many of my GOP colleagues will lose their seats if this trend holds?

There are no more special elections scheduled that would apply to this analysis between now and the Wisconsin recalls, likely to be held July 12th. Those races will tell us a lot more about how the electorate is responding to GOP radicalism.

Democrats won two special elections last night, including one where Republicans had hoped to steal an under-the-radar victory.

First in Minnesota’s state House district 5B, the state Republican Party had relied on violent language and images in its attack mailers against DFL nominee Carly Melin. But those attacks clearly backfired in this culturally conservative district, as Representative-Elect Melin won a landslide 61.5% of the vote in last night’s three-way race.

The Republican nominee, despite significant financial backing from his state party, won barely more than a third of the vote.

Several hours later in California’s state Senate district 28, Democrat Ted W. Lieu walked away with a convincing 57.1% of the vote against a deeply fractured field of seven other competitors.

Senator-Elect Lieu finished more than thirty points ahead of his closest Republican competitor, and he avoided a runoff by winning more than 50% of the vote in this first round.

Congratulations to both winning candidates, and we wish them well as they join their respective Democratic colleagues.

Iowa Tea Party extremists have a new top target for 2012: DLCC Chairman and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. Ever since November, Gronstal has been using his office to keep the state’s focus on jobs and economic growth, which hasn’t left much room for the GOP’s attacks on the judiciary, its plans to dismantle public education, or for the GOP’s divisive social agenda that should rightly take a back seat to getting the economy back on track.

In response, the Tea Party and its GOP legislative allies have pledged to turn Pottawattamie County, home to Senator Gronstal’s Council Bluffs-based district, “into ground zero in 2012.”

Mike Gronstal, take notice: The Iowa Tea Party is out to get you.

Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat who is the majority leader in the Iowa Senate, was targeted during a "Stop the Stalemate" rally Saturday. (…)

"We're looking to put Mike Gronstal out to pasture," said Jeff Jorgensen, chairman of the Pottawattamie County Republican Party. "I'm here to tell you money is not going to save him in this election. Pottawattamie County is going to be ground zero in 2012 because of Mike Gronstal."

Their “ground zero” metaphor may be in poor taste, but it very aptly describes the priorities of Iowa’s Tea Party Republicans, who clearly don’t care about what’s best for struggling families in Iowa and are instead pouring all their energy into satisfying political vendettas.

Meanwhile, Senator Gronstal and his Democratic Senate colleagues will continue focusing on what their constituents really want: more jobs, better schools for their kids and grandkids, and real plans to make Iowa a destination for innovation and new industries.

The Republican agenda is to dismantle all such efforts, and that’s what’s made Senator Gronstal such a thorn in the Tea Party’s side. But so long as leaders like Senator Gronstal are willing to stand up against extreme special interests, well-financed smear campaigns are the inevitable response.

And we’ll be ready for those attacks.