There is ongoing debate about what this November’s results really turned on – was it the economy, or frustration with the slow pace of change, or is it altogether unrealistic to claim that any one single issue is responsible for the results we saw?

What is beyond dispute is that whatever voters’ reasons were for their decisions this year, those decisions will have consequences across a range of issues where Republicans are growing increasingly out of step with the broader American public.

One of those issues is equal rights. The last two years saw incredible progress at the state level on equal rights, and with a few critical exceptions, it seems likely that progress can be protected:

California: Equality supporters scored a symbolic victory in Democrat Richard Pan’s Assembly victory over Proposition 8 author Andy Pugno in a conservative-leaning GOP open seat. The nature of the district and the GOP candidate’s close identification with the anti-equality movement sent a clear signal that even in a Republican year, voters do not want to be governed by right-wing ideologues.

Thanks to Dr. Pan’s win, California Democrats increased their majority in the Assembly by one seat and held their margin in the Senate. With these majorities and the Democrats’ gubernatorial victory, further progress on equality appears likely in the coming years.

Connecticut: Democrats suffered minor losses in both the state Senate and state House, slipping barely below veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But a Democratic gubernatorial win means the returning Democratic majorities are more than sufficient. Connecticut already became a marriage equality state through a 2008 court decision and legislative action in 2009, but progress on other equal rights issues is still possible.

Delaware: This state passed its first anti-discrimination law in 2009, and it was another state where Democrats increased their state House majority, picking up three seats to take a 26-15 majority. They lost a seat in the Senate, dropping to 14-7, but both majorities are now over the 3/5 margin needed to overturn vetoes. Regardless, with a popular Democratic governor elected in 2008, further progress on equal rights seems likely.

Hawaii: Site of the cycle’s last major battle over equal rights – a civil unions bill ultimately vetoed by the Republican Governor, thus breaking her earlier promise – Hawaii Democrats lost only two state House seats and captured one of the GOP’s only two state Senate seats. Both chambers remain the most lopsidedly Democratic in the country, and incoming Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the civil unions bill if passed again.

As an added bonus, Democratic state Rep. Blake Oshiro, the driving force behind last year’s civil unions bill, was re-elected in a landslide, ensuring that equal rights will continue to have a strong champion in the legislature. Further progress on equality appears extremely likely.

Illinois: Democrats retained their majorities in both Illinois legislative chambers, while the gubernatorial election delivered a popular mandate for the state's incumbent Democratic Governor. Following those results, legislators passed the state's first law providing for same-sex civil unions, which will be signed early this year.

Iowa: Despite losing the state House, Iowa Senate Democrats led by DLCC Chairman Mike Gronstal have maintained their majority in the state Senate. As Senate Majority Leader, Gronstal has the sole authority to decide which bills are brought to a vote, and Senator Gronstal has already reiterated his 2009 promise that he will “Never” allow a vote on a constitutional amendment repealing civil marriage equality.

This adds at least another two years to the timeline for any state constitutional amendment in Iowa – even if Republicans re-take the chamber in 2012, the first election after redistricting, the earliest an amendment could reach the ballot would be 2015. With a Republican House and Governor, further progress on equal rights appears unlikely, but thanks to Senator Gronstal, backsliding looks all but impossible.

As an added bonus, openly-gay Senator Matt McCoy was re-elected despite enduring an outrageous smear campaign by his GOP opponent, who labled McCoy the Senate’s “chief sodomite” and accused him of trying to spread HIV through handshakes (which, by the way, is medically impossible). Bigotry may not be gone, but it was certainly dealt a setback with McCoy’s landslide re-election.

Maine: Democrats were dealt major setbacks in Maine, losing control of both the state House, state Senate, and the Governorship. But the state House margin is an extremely narrow 72-78-1, and since Maine voters already narrowly approved a ballot measure repealing the state’s marriage equality law in 2009, it’s unclear how aggressively Republicans will go in seeking to repeal other laws important to the LGBT community, such as the state’s civil unions law, its law permitting joint adoptions, or its hate crimes statute. This is a state of concern.

Maryland: Maryland Democrats actually expanded their majorities in both legislative chambers and re-elected the state's Democratic governor by a wide margin. Because of those results and some internal changes to the legislature's committee membership, equality advocates believe they are in a strong position to push for full civil marriage equality. Further progress here appears extremely likely.

Nevada: After overturning a gubernatorial veto to enact the state’s first civil unions law, Democrats maintained their majorities in both legislative chambers – a narrow 11-10 lead in the state Senate and a wider 26-16 lead in the state Assembly. But without their previous veto-proof Assembly majority and facing a larger, more conservative GOP Senate caucus, further progress will be difficult but not impossible.

New Hampshire: This state formed the tip of the spear for the Democrats’ 2006 rout, delivering major upsets and gains of 6 seats and 84 seats in the state Senate and House, respectively. That was again the case this year, except in the other direction, leaving Republicans with a 5-19 majority in the state Senate and a 102-298 majority in the state House, more than enough seats to overturn vetoes by Democratic Governor John Lynch.

That makes New Hampshire an area of extreme concern for equal rights, because the state’s marriage equality law was only enacted in 2009. And with so many GOP defections needed to sustain a veto, Republicans could potentially target any of the state’s laws that are important to the LGBT community, including adoption laws, hate crimes laws, and anti-discrimination laws. This is a state of concern.

New Jersey: The only competitive legislative election in New Jersey was a state Senate special election in which Democrat Linda Greenstein, a marriage equality supporter and frequent target of social conservative organizations, defeated a GOP appointee who opposes marriage equality. If there was going to be a backlash against the state Senate’s January marriage vote, which unfortunately failed, it would have been felt in this race. And while that bodes well for future votes on equality, the presence of a Republican governor will make further progress difficult.

New York: Republicans won control of the New York Senate by a single seat this year, and Senate Republicans unanimously opposed marriage equality in 2009. Nevertheless, it is believed that the returning Democratic caucus is more cohesive on Equal Rights, and the possibility of a more favorable Senate redistricting plan for 2012 make progress over the intermediate term much more likely.

Rhode Island: Despite losing a relative handful of legislative seats, Democrats retained their commanding majorities in both legislative chambers. And now that the state's GOP governor (who vetoed even a modest bill to grant funeral planning rights to same-sex domestic partners) has been replaced with an Independent governor calling for full civil marriage equality, progress on equal rights seems extremely likely here.

Vermont: One of several states to pass full civil marriage equality in 2009, Vermont re-elected overwhelming Democratic majorities in both state legislative chambers in 2010, as well as electing a new Democratic Governor. Further progress on equal rights appears likely.

Washington: Democrats have retained both of their legislative majorities in Washington, which passed a robust civil unions law in 2009. Equality opponents attempted to overturn the law through a ballot initiative, but the law was narrowly upheld. With Democrats narrowly ahead in both chambers and with a Democratic governor, further progress on equal rights is certainly possible, but after the close result of the civil unions ballot initiative, legislators are likely to give voters time to grow accustomed to civil unions.

Wisconsin: Wisconsin successfully passed a civil unions law in 2009, though previous state laws banning same-sex marriage (and imprisoning for nine months anyone who contracts a same-sex marriage out of state) remain on the books. Democrats lost the governorship and their narrow majorities in both legislative chambers in 2010, putting the civil unions statute and other laws important to the LGBT community at risk.

Overall, despite the Republicans’ strong national showing in 2010, they significantly underperformed in states that were at the forefront of the battle for equal rights in 2009 and 2010. There are at least 8 states where further progress on equal rights is unquestionably more likely because of the 2010 elections, and only three new states that are in legitimate danger of backsliding away from equal rights laws passed in 2009 and 2010. In terms of policy consequences, equal rights advocates at the state level may find that they dodged a major bullet this cycle.

It's very clear by now that a lot of Arkansans walked into the voting booth Nov. 2 and simply filled in the bubble next to anyone's name that didn't have a "D" beside it.

That’s the best explanation David Koon at the Arkansas Times could produce for why Arkansas voters would elect Republican Loy Mauch to represent the 26th state House district near Hot Springs. Mauch is a proud, active member and a former regional chairperson of a racist hate group (designated as such by the non-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center, the leading national authority on such groups).

For more background on the organization Mauch helped lead and still pays dues to, here’s an excerpt from the SPLC’s description of the group, known as the League of the South:

The League of the South is a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “European Americans.” The league believes the “godly” nation it wants to form should be run by an “Anglo-Celtic” (read: white) elite that would establish a Christian theocratic state and politically dominate blacks and other minorities. (…)

The league, which originally had bragged about the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did not then list it as a hate group, quickly became more radical. It came out against interracial marriage. [Founder and current leader Michael] Hill publicly defended antebellum slavery as “God-ordained” and another league leader described segregation as necessary to racial “integrity” of both races, black and white alike. Hill called for a hierarchal society composed of “superiors, equals and inferiors, each protected in their legal privileges” and attacked egalitarianism as a “fatal heresy.” He said people other than white Christians would be allowed to live in his South, but only if they bowed to “the cultural dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions.” Where the goal of secession was once largely rhetorical, it became a seriously stated aim.

In 2000, with the group now claiming some 9,000 members (that number would soon grow to 15,000), the SPLC began listing the league as a hate group.

Beyond that of his associations, Mauch has his own history of neo-confederate radicalism, including showing admiration for the assassin who murdered President Lincoln:

In 2004, angered by the city of Hot Springs' refusal to remove a statue of Abraham Lincoln displayed in the Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center, the Keller Camp [a local branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, commanded by Mauch] hosted a conference in Hot Springs called "Seminar on Abraham Lincoln — Truth vs. Myth," with a keynote address called "Homage to John Wilkes Booth."

In response to the 2008 election of Barack Obama – before President Obama was even sworn in – Mauch used the Confederate battle flag as a rallying cry to declare the new President illegitimate:

"The government has lost its moral authority over God-fearing Americans," Mauch wrote to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. "I wish more patriots like James Vandiver would take their stand for what the Confederate Battle Flag truly symbolizes."

When asked what the Confederate flag symbolizes, Mauch said: "It's a symbol of constitutional government. It's a symbol of Jesus Christ above all else. It's a symbol of Biblical government."

An individual like Loy Mauch is a disgrace to elected office. But sadly, Arkansas is probably stuck with Mauch until the next election in 2012.

There must have a been a moment during this year’s campaign when Democrat Sarah Buxton, at the end of a long day knocking on doors or calling potential voters, told herself “I’ll keep going today until I talk to one more voter.”

She must also be very glad she did, because Buxton has now won by just a single vote:

Democrat Sarah Buxton exited the Superior Court in Woodstock to applause after being declared the official representative-elect of the Royalton-Tunbridge district. The race was separated by just one vote the day after the election-- and it was still not decided after Monday's recount.

"I feel like we can toast tonight with some degree of surety that it's finally the end," Buxton said Tuesday.

The ruling was made by Judge Katherine Hayes, who determined Tuesday that the last recount ballot in question was clearly intended for Buxton, giving her a one-vote lead over Republican David Ainsworth-- and therefore making her the winner of the election.

"It is important for me to remember that I only won by one vote and I will keep that in mind throughout my entire term because I have to appeal to the 880 other people who didn't vote for me," Buxton said.

This race was initially tied on Election Night, but the recount shows Representative-Elect Buxton has defeated the Republican incumbent in this district.

Her GOP opponent has ten days following Judge Hayes’ ruling to file an appeal.

WPTZ News sat down with Buxton during the recount to discuss the lesson every eligible voter should draw from the result.

Nate Silver’s election wrap-up is getting a lot of attention for a passage suggesting a silver lining for the Democrats as a consequence of the losses suffered this year:

What does this mean for 2012? Democrats — if they are expecting to do better than they did this time around — might actually be pleased that elections have become so strongly aligned to partisan orientation. They now have just 12 seats in which Mr. Obama won a minority of the vote to defend — whereas Republicans have 55 where he took the the majority. So if there is even a fairly modest shift back to Democrats in 2012, and the shift is again fairly uniform, they could be in a position to achieve quite a few gains.

But what Silver sees in the congressional results is equally true in key state legislative chambers. There are now at least 10 legislative chambers controlled by Republicans but within reach of the Democrats in states President Obama won handily in 2008. There are even more in some of the closest swing states. Republicans will be defending a large number of first-term legislators in the chambers they now control, including quite a few “accidental” winners from this year who’d probably never stand a chance on their own.

And across the entire country, there are many fewer GOP-leaning districts still held by Democrats, and if those Democrats could hold on in a difficult year like this one, what realistic chance do the Republicans have of defeating them in a neutral or Democratic-leaning year?

District by district, one should always prefer to defend difficult ground than attack more favorable territory – just ask Congressmen Philpot, Dew, Christensen, and Babka. But across an entire state or nation, being on offense is a powerful advantage for a party. Republicans had that advantage this year and made significant gains, but in 2012 it’s the Democrats who will be on offense.

And we’ll be ready to press the case.

A recent candidate debate in Texas House District 105 provided a thorough recap of the various scandals surrounding incumbent GOP state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown. So thorough, in fact, that it brought to light scandals the DLCC hadn't previously addressed.

Brandon Formby of the Dallas Morning News summarized the debate:

Haldenwang, meanwhile, has portrayed Harper-Brown as an ethically challenged woman who has lost touch with her constituents.

The Dallas Morning News this summer reported that Harper-Brown's 2010 Mercedes Benz E-550 was owned by a state transportation contractor. Harper-Brown sits on the powerful House Transportation Committee. She has denied wrongdoing and said the car was payment to her husband, who does accounting for the contractor and related companies.

Last week, The News reported that Harper-Brown and the Texas Ethics Commission are reviewing her campaign finance reports spanning several years, amid questions about more than $450,000 in loans that have no record of being repaid.

We were already aware of Harper-Brown’s ill-gotten luxury vehicle, but the story of the outstanding loans was not as well-known.

A loan that is never repaid, of course, is not a loan at all – it’s a gift. And while Texas ethics laws allow individuals to donate princely sums of money to their favorite candidate, the public nevertheless has a right to know where such donations are coming from. And that, according to the Morning News’ previous reporting, is the problem for Harper-Brown:

But a lawyer for the Texas Values in Action Coalition, a political action group that tries to get Democratic candidates elected to state offices, said forgiven loans should be reported as gifts.

"I receive something of value from you and I need to report that somewhere on the form," attorney Ed Cloutman said. "That's the whole point of the form."

The Texas Values in Action Coalition filed a complaint with the ethics commission about how Harper-Brown reported her outstanding loan balances. Sorrells said the commission cannot confirm or deny whether complaints have been filed.

This is hardly the first time Texas Republicans have gotten into trouble for shady dealings related to campaign finance, and it’s just another in a wave of scandals threatening their hold on the Texas House.

The Democratic challenger in this race is Loretta Haldenwang.

PBS NewsHour 10/20/10: Cartographic Clout: GOP, Democrats Vie for Redistricting Dominance.

Pollster.com’s Dr. Michael McDonald has begun to track early voting statistics across the country, and he’s found an unexpected surge of absentee ballots that could favor Democrats in Ohio:

But something special is going on in two Ohio Democratic strongholds: Cuyahoga and Franklin counties. I track on this handy web page that other places around the country -- including other Ohio counties -- are so far reporting low single digit early voting rates. In stark contrast, over 112,000 votes have already been cast in these two Ohio counties. As a comparison, this represents over ten percent of all ballots cast in the 2006 election in these counties, with still some time to go.

I spoke with local election officials in both counties to understand what is fueling their early voting. They attribute this phenomenon to two factors. First, Ohio recently adopted no-fault absentee voting, which increased the pool of eligible early voters. Second, local election officials in these counties decided to mail an absentee ballot request form to every registered voter. The response has clearly been enthusiastic.

As Democrats, we believe state and local elections officials have a responsibility to make it as easy as possibly for residents to legally cast ballots, so we applaud officials in Cuyahoga and Franklin counties for sending the absentee ballot requests.

More counties should do so, because given how late many voters tune into election season, applying for absentee ballots isn’t always a top concern for those planning a trip out of state. Also, a surprising number of voters simply don’t realize they have the option of voting absentee, and it’s especially important for these voters to receive an official, non-partisan notice explaining why and how to do so.

Dr. McDonald goes on to explain what heightened early voting means for campaigns:

For the campaigns, every early vote cast by an identified supporter is a contact that they can scratch off their lists. They can then re-target their voter mobilization efforts to eligible persons who have not yet voted. That these votes are being banked in high Democratic areas is likely welcome news for statewide Democratic candidates, like Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland who is locked in a tight battle with Republican candidate John Kasich.

It’s also welcome news for Democratic state House candidates, but since many of the top-tier races are in swingier areas of these counties (the suburbs of Columbus, especially), the effect of heightened early voting may not be as unambiguously pro-Democratic in those districts. Nevertheless, with the so-called “enthusiasm gap” driving the narrative of this election, higher turnout in general should be expected to favor Democrats.

The Spokane County Republican Party, like many Republican committees around the country, has been overrun by Tea Party activists. And just like in other states, these activists packed the county GOP’s platform with some of the fringiest, most unpopular ideas they could think of.

But once their tea-tinged platform was actually adopted, activists fretted that GOP candidates might simply ignore it, or at least cherry pick the “normal” right-wing ideas while letting the Tea Party’s strongest brew fall into obscurity.

So the county party decided to ask every Republican candidate in Spokane County to sign a pledge, stating that they’ve read the platform and support it. Some refused to do so (and found themselves without the county GOP’s endorsement), but pretty much everyone else decided to show their true colors and embraced the Pledge – a decision that’s come back to haunt them in the General Election:

But some of the platform’s 120 policy statements make more-surprising calls, for, among other things: An end to no-fault divorce. A return to the gold standard. Tax incentives for the shoe and textile industry. U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

And some Republicans worry the platform – which they’re asked to pledge to support when they seek party endorsement – diverges from their values and opens the door to attacks from Democrats.

Earlier this month, Democratic state Sen. Chris Marr highlighted his opponent’s promise to support the county Republican platform. He said it’s proof that Republican Michael Baumgartner is “out of touch with his constituency.”

In addition to the issues mentioned above, Baumgartner’s signature on the Pledge puts him on record in favor of ending all state mandates on insurance companies, such as the requirement that Washington State insurers cover life-saving mammograms, HIV/AIDS testing, and cancer screenings. He also favors the repeal of landmark environmental protections like the Endangered Species Act.

Now that he’s drawing unwanted attention for his extremism, Baumgartner is trying to walk back his endorsement of these ideas. When asked about specific provisions in the document he signed, Baumgartner told the Spokesman-Review different iterations of “I’d have to be briefed up on it” or “I haven’t looked at that one” – even though the pledge itself first asked him to confirm that he read the platform in the first place.

Even if Baumgartner really isn’t as extreme as the policies he endorsed, his shocking inability to think for himself should give Spokane-area voters pause. After all, signing a party platform didn’t hurt anyone – but casting a bad vote in the legislature easily could.

Do you want a stronger progressive voice in Congress? Then you need to get out and vote for Democratic state legislators this November. Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect explained why in an article this morning:

Despite two cycles of Republican map-drawing, Democrats managed to reclaim a majority in 2006. In some districts, demographic changes outpaced gerrymandering, allowing Democrats to make gains where Republicans expected to be safe. But Democrats also expanded into Republican territory. This is a testament to good campaigning, but it's also the cause of a frequent progressive problem: the large number of Democrats in Congress who face electoral incentives to pander to conservatives.

Redistricting presents an opportunity to solve this problem directly: Drawing more competitive seats would allow Democrats to expand their majority not just in "safe" districts or Republican strongholds but in balanced seats. Look at voter registration by district: Dozens of Democrats have won seats where Republicans have the advantage, but most Republican districts are just that -- home to Republicans. That's why this redistricting isn't just important for straightforward partisan reasons but for influencing the type of governing coalition that comes out of an election: one dominated by the right side of the Democratic coalition or by the center-left.

We can argue endlessly about how strong the “electoral incentives to pander to conservatives” really are for a Democrat in a conservative-leaning district. Democratic defectors on key votes are often savaged in the progressive community, especially when those defections prove decisive.

At the same time, Democrats who cast progressive votes despite their tough districts are applauded as courageous – consider that all 25 of Nate Silver’s “most valuable” Democratic congresspersons represent Republican-leaning districts. That implies that progressive votes really are more hazardous for these legislators than for others.

But Fernholz isn’t trying to settle that debate. His argument – and ours – is that 2010 offers the opportunity to make that debate irrelevant. If we can reverse the GOP gerrymandering that forces Democrats to rely on dozens of heavily conservative districts for a majority, the center of gravity for the entire Democratic caucus becomes more progressive.

And as a bonus, we’ll force Republicans to compete for progressive voters. Finally, the GOP will have to choose between losing seats and defecting on key votes - which would in turn provide cover for some of those same Democrats in conservative districts. That hasn’t happened since redistricting in 1990, and it’s poisoning our political system.

But most importantly, redistricting only happens once every decade (usually). Which means this is our last chance to undo the damage caused by 20 years of Republican gerrymandering. So we’ll let Fernholz’ last word on the issue be ours as well:

Not, then, the best election day to stay home, or perhaps worse, get to the voting booth and fail to make it down the ballot to your state legislators. Remember: It's not just a decision about next year's vote on the Bush tax cuts, or whatever subject motivates you most. It's a decade of votes on every issue that matters.

Redistricting has been a hot topic this cycle for a lot of organizations (including ours). And with potentially dozens of more favorable congressional seats and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign savings at stake, it’s obvious that state legislatures are a critical objective this year.

And as DownWithTyranny! reports, one organization called Progressive Kick is offering Democratic activists a chance to double their impact in these key races while directly supporting some great progressive candidates:

(…) I'm excited to tell you about an organization that is doing just that, Progressive Kick. As you can see they have already endorsed progressive state legislative candidates in Oregon and Pennsylvania.

Right now they've set up a matching fund to be able to deliver a quarter million dollars across several down-ballot races around the country. A quarter million dollars doesn't do all that much anymore in U.S. Senate races and certainly doesn't win a House seat anymore-- but it is really powerful in local races and can make all the difference in the world-- a difference that impacts redrawing of districts as well as the all-important existence of a deep and well prepared "bench." Aside from the Oregon and Pennsylvania candidates, by next week they'll have candidates up from Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

So basically, what Progressive Kick is committing to is a minimum of $125,000 that they've already received from major donors as a dollar-for-dollar matching-fund for whichever candidates generate some money on the ActBlue page. In other words, if you want to see progressive Frank Bovalino take out right-wing lemming Jim Christiana in Pennsylvania's 15th House district, by donating $20, you guarantee that Bovalino's campaign gets $40. These are all carefully vetted candidates in close but winnable races. Progressive Kick is concentrating exclusively on races that will lead to control of Congressional redistricting in the respective states.

Progressive Kick ran a similar campaign in Virginia in 2009, and they’ve set up an ActBlue page supporting this year’s national effort.