Can Democrats Ever Win Back State Legislatures?

One group is putting $70 million on it happening in the next five years.

A picture made October 14, 2011 shows the Capitol Building in Pennsylvania's capital Harrisburg.
National Journal
Emma Roller
Add to Briefcase
Emma Roller
Feb. 24, 2015, midnight

Caring about the 2016 pres­id­en­tial race is so over; now all the cool kids are watch­ing 2020.

Since 2008, Demo­crats have lost con­trol of 30 state le­gis­lat­ive cham­bers — total­ing 910 seats — and 11 gov­ernor­ships. Those were some of the cheery find­ings of the Demo­crat­ic Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee’s post­mortem re­port on 2014 (aka Shel­lack­g­ate).

Now, one group — the Demo­crat­ic Le­gis­lat­ive Cam­paign Com­mit­tee — is strik­ing out with an am­bi­tious goal to win many of those state le­gis­lature seats back over the next five years. Back in Au­gust, the DLCC launched Ad­vant­age 2020, a su­per PAC de­voted to re­build­ing Demo­crat­ic power at the state level with the goal of even­tu­ally hold­ing the cray­ons in 2021, when states will re­draw con­gres­sion­al dis­trict lines.

It’s a quix­ot­ic mis­sion, giv­en that many Re­pub­lic­an le­gis­latures re­drew the maps in 2011 spe­cific­ally to en­sure their party’s con­tin­ued elect­or­al vic­tory. Still, with the right com­bin­a­tion of tim­ing, re­cruit­ing, out­reach, fund­ing, and dumb luck, Demo­crats might ac­tu­ally be able to re­coup some of their losses.

The power of the states to de­term­ine power in Wash­ing­ton is not in­sig­ni­fic­ant: 36 state le­gis­latures draw con­gres­sion­al dis­trict lines com­pris­ing 336 total con­gres­sion­al dis­tricts. That’s more than three-quar­ters of the makeup of the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives.

Demo­crats’ loss of state le­gis­latures be­fore 2010 has re­ver­ber­ated past those states’ bor­ders, al­low­ing Re­pub­lic­ans to re­dis­trict as they saw fit in 2011 and rais­ing the star power of purple-state Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernors such as Wis­con­sin’s Scott Walk­er, Ohio’s John Kasich, and Michigan’s Rick Snyder. Last week, the DLCC an­nounced that Mark Schauer, who lost the gov­ernor’s race to Snyder last year, will lead its new ef­fort to take back power at the state level — and, by ex­ten­sion, na­tion­ally.

The group pro­jects it will spend $70 mil­lion on state-level races over the next five years and plans to fo­cus its ef­forts on six states: Flor­ida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vir­gin­ia, and Wis­con­sin. Those states, which draw the lines for 94 con­gres­sion­al seats, are all Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled at the state level, yet all favored Pres­id­ent Obama over Mitt Rom­ney in 2012.

This is where the DLCC sees room for move­ment.

“These are battle­ground states that are very im­port­ant to the DLCC and have huge na­tion­al im­plic­a­tions,” Schauer told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “Make no mis­take: It is about win­ning and build­ing upon the DLCC’s track re­cord of do­ing that.”

Today, Re­pub­lic­ans con­trol 69 of the coun­try’s 99 state le­gis­lat­ive cham­bers (every state has two cham­bers ex­cept for Neb­raska). That’s nearly 70 per­cent of the total. So, how feas­ible is it for Demo­crats to re­gain the seats they lost, in dis­tricts that (they ar­gue) have been tail­or-drawn for Re­pub­lic­ans’ be­ne­fit? There are a lot of factors to con­sider.

One reas­on the DLCC sees room for op­tim­ism is that, between now and the end of 2020, Amer­ic­an voters will have par­ti­cip­ated in two more pres­id­en­tial elec­tions. That’s good news for Demo­crats, who tend to do bet­ter in pres­id­en­tial years than in midterm years (2014, e.g.) as they see high­er turnout among young people and minor­it­ies.

Schauer said demo­graph­ic shifts — like the grow­ing pop­u­la­tion of mil­len­ni­als and Latino voters — will also work to Demo­crats’ ad­vant­age.

“We’ve got the ana­lyt­ic­al ex­pert­ise, the polit­ic­al ex­pert­ise with­in the DLCC and its board, and its state part­ners and oth­er al­lies to do this soph­ist­ic­ated, state-spe­cif­ic strategy,” Schauer said. “I think Demo­crats with­in state cap­it­als as well as in Wash­ing­ton see the kind of policies — at­tack­ing wo­men’s health, un­der­min­ing vot­ing rights, at­tack­ing the middle class, im­mig­rants, and minor­ity groups — all of these are out of step with what it takes to move our coun­try for­ward. So we know what the stakes are, and that’s why we’ve taken this bold step to change the land­scape and put an end to right-wing ger­ry­man­der­ing.”

The Re­pub­lic­an State Lead­er­ship Com­mit­tee — the con­ser­vat­ive equi­val­ent of the DLCC — would beg to dif­fer. RSLC Pres­id­ent Matt Wal­ter ar­gued that Demo­crats had no prob­lem with par­tis­an re­dis­trict­ing, as long as they had con­trol of the maps.

“The last half of the 20th cen­tury saw sig­ni­fic­ant Demo­crat­ic con­trol at the state le­gis­lat­ive level as well as Con­gress, right up un­til the ‘94 re­volu­tion, largely be­cause they were pretty ef­fi­cient at re­dis­trict­ing. Re­pub­lic­ans have caught up, we feel, in the last re­dis­trict­ing cycle,” Wal­ter told Na­tion­al Journal. “The Demo­crats have fi­nally woken up and real­ized that there is a state-level gov­ern­ment and that it’s crit­ic­ally im­port­ant in people’s lives.”

The RSLC has also been ramp­ing up out­reach ef­forts to minor­ity groups and wo­men, which Wal­ter says helped elect 140 Re­pub­lic­an wo­men to of­fice in the last elec­tion cycle. It’s an­oth­er ex­ample that, no mat­ter how much ef­fort Demo­crats put in­to re­gain­ing power at the state level, they are not op­er­at­ing in a va­cu­um.

If the DLCC can help re­cruit strong Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates to run for state of­fice over the next three elec­tion cycles, at least two of those cycles will be more fa­vor­able to them in terms of who will be vot­ing. But that is a big if.

“All of the su­per PAC money in the world prob­ably won’t win dis­tricts if there’s a fail­ure to re­cruit strong can­did­ates,” Charles Frank­lin, a polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist at Mar­quette Uni­versity, told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “Re­pub­lic­ans are not go­ing to sit around and just let the Demo­crats do whatever they want on re­cruit­ment.”

There are cer­tain cir­cum­stances un­der which Demo­crats could see the same big wave of vic­tor­ies in 2020 that Re­pub­lic­ans saw in 2010, even with the dis­trict maps work­ing against them. In 2006 and 2008, Demo­crats in Wis­con­sin made huge gains and even­tu­ally en­joyed full-party con­trol of state gov­ern­ment, only to have that con­trol com­pletely upen­ded in 2010. The dis­trict lines didn’t change; voters did.

“Un­der the cir­cum­stances of a ma­jor pro-Demo­crat­ic wave, I think you shouldn’t dis­count the abil­ity of fired-up voters shift­ing party con­trol even without changes in dis­trict­ing,” Frank­lin said. “There’s a lot of the as­sump­tion that dis­trict­ing is des­tiny. It’s a big chunk of des­tiny, but so are wave elec­tions.”

For the DLCC, there is a sil­ver lin­ing to the swell of vic­tory that Re­pub­lic­ans saw at the state level in 2010: term lim­its. Law­makers in three of Ad­vant­age 2020’s six tar­get states — Flor­ida, Michigan, and Ohio — are term-lim­ited, mean­ing that many of the seats will be wide open in five years.

Polit­ic­al waves can be some­what pre­dict­able, but like Browni­an mo­tion, a lot of the move­ment is left up to chance. It’s im­possible to say today wheth­er Demo­crats will be able to take back state le­gis­latures in 2020. There are simply too many factors to take in­to ac­count.

“There’s no guar­an­tee at all that 2020 will be a good year for Demo­crats,” Frank­lin said. “At this point, for all we know, there’s a Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent elec­ted in ‘16 who’s wildly pop­u­lar and sweeps the reelec­tion in 2020. I wouldn’t count those chick­ens be­fore they’re hatched, by any means.”

One thing Schauer and Wal­ter can agree on: Just be­cause they may dis­agree with how the oth­er side draws dis­tricts, that doesn’t mean the power of the map-draw­ing should be put in the hands of non­par­tis­an judges.

“The en­tire design of the sys­tem is set­ting up a sys­tem of checks and bal­ances rather than wait­ing for a be­ne­vol­ent line-draw­er with no polit­ic­al as­pir­a­tions to draw the lines for them, be­cause what we real­ize as Amer­ic­ans is, that doesn’t ex­ist,” Wal­ter said. “It’s em­power­ing, and for 50 years when the Demo­crats had the pen at the state level, it was seen as an em­power­ing thing. Now that they’ve lost touch, lost elec­tions, all of a sud­den the con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­cess that has served them so well for many years is now sud­denly a bad thing. And that’s hy­po­crisy, and people won’t buy it.”

Schauer agreed that re­dis­trict­ing be­longs in the hands of the le­gis­lature but ad­ded that Re­pub­lic­ans shouldn’t be al­lowed to pack left-lean­ing voters in­to as few dis­tricts as pos­sible.

“I think the pro­cess can be done fairly le­gis­lat­ively,” Schauer said. “Le­gis­latures are sup­posed to rep­res­ent the in­terests of the people. But they have to be also based on fair stand­ards.”

So, wheth­er or not Demo­crats will be able to re­set the game board come 2021, they can at least agree with Re­pub­lic­ans on the ba­sic rules.

Cor­rec­tion: An earli­er ver­sion of this story mis­stated the full name of the RSLC and the num­ber of state le­gis­lat­ive cham­bers Re­pub­lic­ans con­trol. RSLC stands for the Re­pub­lic­an State Lead­er­ship Com­mit­tee, and Re­pub­lic­ans across the coun­try con­trol 69 cham­bers.

What We're Following See More »
Hoyer Secures Majority Leader Position
1 hours ago
Papadopoulos' Lawyers Withdraw Representation
4 hours ago
Hate Crimes Up 17% in 2017
6 hours ago

"Hate crimes in America rose 17 percent last year, the third consecutive year that such crimes increased, according to newly released FBI data. Law enforcement agencies reported 7,175 hate crimes occurred in 2017, up from 6,121 in 2016. That increase was fueled in part by more police departments reporting hate crimes data to the FBI, but overall there is still a large number of departments that report no hate crimes to the federal database." Anti-Semitic hate crimes rose by 37 percent during the period.

Maryland Challenges Whitaker's Appointment
6 hours ago

"Matthew Whitaker’s authority to serve as acting U.S. attorney general is being challenged by the state of Maryland, which says it will ask a judge on Tuesday to rule that his appointment wasn’t legitimate. Maryland’s bid could force a federal judge to decide who is the chief U.S. law enforcement officer and whether President Donald Trump has power to appoint Whitaker in an acting capacity without Senate approval. Such a decision, in what could become a key test of presidential power, would almost certainly be appealed to higher courts."

Judge Orders Review of Georgia Provisional Ballots
6 hours ago

"A federal judge has ordered Georgia take steps to ensure provisional ballots aren't improperly rejected and to wait until Friday to certify the results of the midterm elections that include an unsettled race for governor. In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg ordered the secretary of state's office to establish and publicize a hotline or website where voters can check whether their provisional ballots were counted and, if not, the reason why. And, for counties with 100 or more provisional ballots, she ordered the secretary of state's office to review, or have county election officials review, the eligibility of voters who had to cast a provisional ballot because of registration issues."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.