State Legislatures Magazine: December 2000

Editor's Note: This article appeared in the December 2000 issue of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures. To order copies or to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 364-7700.

The New Political Parity

Dead Center
Only 51 Percent Voted
Further Inroads in the South
Uncertainty in Washington
Eye on Redistricting

The New Political Parity

It took an excruciating amount of time to decipher what the American people said when they voted Nov. 7. But when the final tally was made, state legislatures are more competitive than any time in recent memory.

By Karen Hansen

When Americans tuned in to watch election returns Nov. 7, little did they expect to witness the unprecedented series of events that makes this election one for the history books-a president elected by a narrow electoral majority, a Congress that for only the second time this century is so closely divided and state legislatures poised to redraw the lines that will affect the party in power for the first decade of the new century.

Even as Americans put history on hold in one of the tightest presidential elections ever, the votes they cast in state legislative races brought the partisan balance closer than at any time in the past 50 years. The political landscape of the states in 2001 will reflect as even a match as has been seen in the last half century.

"We now truly have American political parity," says pollster Frank Luntz, "an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. That showed itself in the House, the Senate and the presidency."

But is this new political parity the result of a deeply divided electorate? CNN political analyst William Schneider doesn't think so. "You got the impression from looking at the electoral map and the results in Congress that Americans were deeply polarized. But that simply wasn't the case," Schneider says. "You could have very nearly a 50-50 split in the Senate, a narrow majority in the House just got narrower. The presidential vote could hardly be more closely divided than it is.

"But when I looked at the exit polling there wasn't much evidence that the people were deeply divided-not nearly as much as they were over Nixon and McGovern or Johnson and Goldwater."

Like a baseball game that goes into extra innings, the presidential race hung in the balance for a nerve-wracking several days. And-just as in the national elections-there were few home runs for either party in state legislative contests. Going into the election, Democrats controlled 19 legislatures, Republicans held 17, and 13 were split (Nebraska is nonpartisan.) On Nov. 8, Democrats held 16, Republicans still controlled 17, and in 16 others control was split. (At the time of this story, Washington was undeclared.)

DEAD CENTER
The astounding ambivalence of voters in the presidential election, that ultimately hinged on the recount of a mere 1,800 votes and absentee ballots in Florida, was mirrored in congressional races which gave Democrats a net gain of six seats. A scant 1 percent of state legislative seats went to the other party. In this case, the Republicans. Nationally, the GOP picked up a net of some 70 seats in state chambers.

"Everything is dead center," says Luntz. "It is a balanced election; it is a central election; it is a compromise election."

"A close split has become closer in state legislatures," says Schneider. "The same thing has happened in Congress."

For politicians looking for a message in this election, Schneider believes it is the same it's always been.

"The people always want government from the middle," he says. "That's been true forever. The question is what kind of change do they want? And what they want, to put it very precisely, is a change in leadership, but not a change in direction."

ONLY 51 PERCENT VOTED
On Nov. 8, the voting was over but the election was not-nationally and in some state legislative contests. The perception that the closest election in a generation was the result of a huge turnout was, in fact, a misperception. Only some 51 percent of the approximately 200 million eligible voters cast ballots, according to Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. It was a slim increase over the 49 percent who voted in the 1996 presidential election, which had been the first time since 1925 that less that half the electorate bothered to go to the polls. Voter turnout has been steadily declining since the last presidential cliffhanger, the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy race when 62.8 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

The slight upturn this year probably doesn't affect the downward trend "at all," according to Gans, and is primarily attributable to "the mobilization effects in the battleground states."

"Several of the non-battleground states had lower turnout," he says.

And, as everywhere in this nail-biting election where margins were razor thin, the issues that drove the voters were local. And every vote counted.

Take Vermont. There will be a Republican speaker in the Vermont House for the first time in 16 years. The election gave Republicans a 21-seat advantage over the Democrats. Observers believe that at least some of the GOP gains this year were attributable to a backlash against the state's controversial law legalizing civil unions between same-sex couples.

In New Hampshire, Republicans broke the 12-12 tie in the Senate to take a two-seat majority and likely thwart a statewide income tax some Democrats had proposed to finance court-ordered education funding. The state Supreme Court ruled that the current school finance formula that heavily relies on the property tax is unconstitutional. In the 1998 election, Democrats won control for the first time since 1912 with a 13-11 margin, only to lose it when a member died and was replaced in a special election by a Republican. One candidate won by only 85 votes, another contest is within 1 percent. Recounts are expected in both. Republicans attribute their success to a massive grass roots campaign in which 1,000 volunteers contacted tens of thousands of registered Republicans and independents on election day.

The GOP fought back an effort by Democrats to wrest control of the Pennsylvania House, tied at 100-100 going into the election after three Republicans left in a cloud of controversy, one convicted of a fatal hit-and-run accident. Five legislators in all were sentenced for criminal acts this year, and another faces a drunk driving charge. The GOP gained four seats for a 104-99 margin.

Missouri Democrats' 53-year dominance of the state Senate was broken by a Republican challenge that put the chamber in a tie. There will be three vacancies-two Democrat and one Republican-created by members who won other offices. One, the Democratic lieutenant governor-elect, could cast the tie-breaking vote in leadership races, tilting the chamber to Democratic control.

FURTHER INROADS IN THE SOUTH
For the first time since Reconstruction, Democrats are no longer in control in the now-tied South Carolina Senate. The Republicans' one-seat gain may give them effective control of the chamber because the Republican lieutenant governor casts the tie-breaking vote. The Republicans increased their majority in the House, continuing their inroads into the South that have whittled away at the Democratic dominance of state legislatures over the past two decades.

In Maine, Republicans gained three seats in the Senate to pull even with the Democrats. A lone independent could determine which party is the effective majority, and there is talk of a shared-power arrangement.

The Arizona Senate is now tied after voters gave Democrats the seat from a conservative Republican district where the term-limited House speaker was seeking election. Former Speaker Jeff Croscost had crafted a controversial alternative fuels law that is predicted to drain $500 million from the state treasury. After the election, he resigned from his post as speaker. Democrats also inched their numbers up in the House by three seats where the GOP majority is now 37-23.

In Colorado, where negative campaign ads in primaries and term limits forced some moderate Republicans out of office, Democrats won control of the Senate for the first time in 40 years, splitting control of that legislature, and increasing their seats in the GOP-dominated House. Democrats conducted a massive get-out-the-vote drive that included registering 80 percent of the state's union members. Voters were also focused on such issues as growth and gun safety following the Columbine school killings that Democrats believe helped propel them into the majority.

UNCERTAINTY IN WASHINGTON
In Washington, where the House has been tied the last two years, the election is still up in the air at press time. Democrats are claiming a one-seat lead, but with a third of the voters casting absentee ballots (and those ballots did not have to be certified until Nov. 22) and four seats requiring a mandatory recount, it could be weeks until the outcome is known. Charges of negative campaigning came from both parties, and some four to five races are so close recounts are likely.

These shifts give Republicans a slight edge in the partisan balance in states. In fact, not since 1952-the last year Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency-have the Democrats controlled so few legislatures. Following the 1980 election, the GOP started to change the political landscape in legislatures. Although winning at the national level long before then, the decade of the '80s saw Republicans moving into the South and by 1990 the GOP was competitive throughout the country.

"And in 2000 people feel as comfortable voting Republican on a local level as they do on a national level," says Luntz. "Even if there is an even balance between Republicans and Democrats in the 2001 legislatures, I believe the Republicans are in a stronger position in redistricting nationwide."

EYE ON REDISTRICTING
Redistricting is one of the most important prizes of the election, and both parties believe they held their own in their battleground states. The GOP held on to the Michigan House, the Pennsylvania House and the Texas Senate. The Democrats kept control of the Illinois House, the Texas House and the Indiana House. Each chamber is critical to that party's goals for congressional redistricting. And in each, a shift of three or fewer seats would have changed the majority in the chamber or split control of the legislature.

Both parties spent millions of dollars in key races in their focus on redistricting. Although 5,918 seats were up for election, it boiled down to some 75 critical state races, according to Kevin Mack, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

"Redistricting will make or break either party in terms of long-term control of the U.S. House of Representatives," says Mack. "We fought this thing hard, and we fought it to a draw."

"It's pretty much a push," agreed Tom Hofeller of the Republican National Committee.

So while Democrats made inroads in the U.S. House and Senate, state GOP lawmakers are in a stronger position than 10 years ago-when most of the maps were drawn with Democrats in control-to affect the makeup of Congress in the decade to come. And some analysts believe they could increase Republican congressional seats by several in the 2002 election.

Where could those seats be?

Pennsylvania, where Republicans are optimistic they can gain several seats.
Texas, where the GOP could gain one to two seats.
Florida, where the GOP could pick up one or two seats, and the Legislature and governor are Republican. But the new political alignment could also benefit Democrats in certain states.
With Democrats at the table for the first time in decades in Colorado, Republicans likely will not be able to improve on their current 4-2 advantage.
Holding on to the Texas House was a big win for Democrats. The state may gain a Republican seat or two, but the Democrats will have a major role in the process.
California Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature and the governor's office, believe redistricting will be good to them. The current congressional map was adopted by the courts. This time around, the Democrats believe they could pick up a couple of seats.

The handful of Republican gains in the states have pushed the nation squarely into the middle.

"Republicans are in the strongest position nationwide they have been in decades because they are now able to win in areas that were unreceptive to Republicans in the past," says Luntz.

Schneider cautions that party balance may be interpreted differently by the voters and the people they elect.

"The problem is that in the electorate, party balance reflects one thing-no great commitment to one party or the other, government from the center, less bickering and partisanship," he says. "But among politicians, a close party balance produces more bickering, more ideological hardlining. It produces trench warfare in legislatures, whereas the voters want something else."

Nevertheless, state legislatures clearly reflect the political balance of the country, according to William Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"They are more competitive than at any time in memory-both in control of chambers and the nearly even numerical balance between Democrats and Republicans.

"Legislatures in recent years have been the primary innovators in public policy in the United States, and I see no indication that this will change."

Karen Hansen is editor of State Legislatures. Nancy Rhyme contributed to this story.

Visitor counts for this page.