Instant
Democracy for Everyone
There are groups
out there that are trying to co-opt representative democracy.
Their plan is to
use technology and the Internet to make legislatures a thing of
the past.
By Brian Weberg
Look out now.
Here it comes. It's called direct democracy (DD), and it's coming
soon to a city and a state near you. It's not just the popular
initiative, like 24 states already have. DD, as envisioned by
many who promote it, is the initiative on steroids. Move over,
you old institutions of representative democracy (RD), there's
a new game coming to town. Well, really, an old game with a shiny
new look made possible by technology and the Internet.
Dick Morris, former
sidekick of President Clinton, is so convinced about the coming
age of direct democracy that he's written a book about it and
opened a Web-based portal called vote.com (the name of his book,
too). It's a sure sign that DD is coming into vogue when wily
insiders like Morris line up to cash in on the trend. Just as
the Web has opened up commerce in new and accelerated ways, so
too, proponents say, will the Internet open up democracy. We will
name our own price on priceline.com, then click our own public
policy on vote.com.
A hundred years
ago, the Populists and Progressives promoted reforms to a system
of representative democracy that they said had been subverted
by special interests and cronyism. They offered solutions such
as the direct election of U.S. senators, recall of elected officials
and, of course, the initiative. Today, those reforms are taken-for-granted
elements of many states' political landscapes. And in the recent
past, a significant new reform has been added to the mix - term
limits.
Our nation is
about to engage again in a philosophical debate and probably a
few political skirmishes about the future of its democratic principles,
processes and institutions. America's tradition of representative
democracy, so carefully crafted by the founding fathers, might
be in the balance. Those who believe in and see the virtues of
representative democracy will be on the defensive from the start.
Those who promote direct democracy will have technology, and probably
public opinion, on their side. And maybe fate. As Morris glibly
asserts, "Whether direct Internet democracy is good or bad is
quite beside the point. It is inevitable."
Direct Democracy Movement
Direct democracy
means many things to many people. It is a movement that is both
grassroots and, as the vote.com example demonstrates, inhabited
by seasoned strategists.
To some devotees,
it is the ultimate expression of personal and collective political
freedom where each member of society participates fully in public
decision making. An almost utopian aura pervades some of the literature.
The Web-based Direct Democracy Online Project predicts "a superior
form of government, in which the freedom and the happiness of
all the citizens will be more secure than eve. . ." In radical
and Web-gadabout Aki Orr's Direct Democracy Manifesto, he sees
"a new system where every citizen can propose and vote on every
political decision," which will "raise humanity to a higher level
and will change not only society but also the individual."
Most direct democracy
advocates are a bit more pragmatic. Generally, they call for the
expanded use of the initiative at the local, state or federal
levels (and a few call for global direct democracy). Many enthusiasts
also support proportional representation. Stephen Neitzke's Direct
Democracy League says there are "four functional parts" of DD:
direct election of representatives, civic initiative, referendum
and recall of elected officials. When all of these are in place,
as they are in 11 states, according to Neitzke, citizens enjoy
what he calls "modern authentic democracy."
Ted Becker is
a political science professor at Auburn University and the voice
of the Global Democratic Movement whose "explicit goal is to maintain
a Web site that will help inform and synergize those who are interested
in finding new and better ways to empower the citizens of modern,
high-tech nations so that they may influence, or better yet, direct
the major agendas, priorities and policies of their polities."
Becker says that reforms like term limits "are the equivalent
of new patches on a worn out tire." He advocates something called
teledemocracy where communications technology merges with "citizen
power" to "transform democracies into the next phase of their
evolution."
The Initiative
& Referenda Institute has a more mainstream and limited agenda
on DD, and perhaps because of that, more relevance to what is
happening in politics today. The institute aims "to inform and
educate the public about the [initiative] process and its effects
on the political, fiscal and social fabric of our society; and
to provide effective leadership in litigation-defending the initiative
process and the right of citizens to reform their government from
career legislators who want to take it away." Its Web site offers
a wealth of information on the status of initiatives and referenda
in the states. The institute offers talking points in which it
asserts that I&R are not a replacement for representative
democracy, nor is it direct democracy. "It is simply an additional
check and balance on those who are in power."
Former Alaska
U.S. Senator Mike Gravel and his group Philadelphia II are pushing
a direct democracy initiative that would, according to their Web
site, "enable ordinary citizens to make laws and legislate policy
in every government jurisdiction of the United States." Their
plan would allow popular initiatives to qualify for the ballot
in three ways: by legislative resolution, by citizen petition
and by public opinion poll. In the latter method, a new federal
agency called the Electoral Trust would oversee the management
of the polling process. According to Gravel, "The Direct Democracy
Initiative does not change representative governments - it seeks
to bring people into a legislating partnership with their representatives
in all government jurisdictions."
Over at Dick Morris'
vote.com, visitors vote up or down on a slate of public policy
issues. For example, on one day the lead question was: Should
Same-Sex Couples Be Banned from Adopting Children? Voters are
offered background information on the questions, including pro
and con arguments. Vote.com then promises to send the results
of the poll to relevant lawmakers. "When you vote on a topic listed
on our site, we'll send an immediate e-mail to significant decision
makers like your congressional representative, your senators and
the president telling them how you feel." Morris believes that
Internet-based opinion gathering and distribution is the wave
of the future. He sees the Internet replacing traditional media-dominated
information sources and becoming "the driving force in American
political life, and the result is nothing short of a cultural
revolution."
Although Dick
Morris traditionally works the federal angles of government, he
sees the Internet revolution coming to states, too. State legislatures,
which Morris writes are "notoriously insensitive to the will of
their constituents," will find that "voters will seize the right
to make their own decisions through the Internet, just as they
will do in national politics."
Also making a
somewhat mainstream direct democracy-related play at the congressional
level is USADemocracy, which counts among its advisory board the
eclectic likes of James Carville, Ralph Reed, Geraldine Ferraro
and Richard Galen, the executive director of GOPAC. At www.usademocracy.com
visitors sign up for free membership that allows them to vote
on congressional bills and also monitor their own member's voting
record. Running tabulations compare on-line voting results to
those taken in Congress and also break down the vote according
to the user's state and district. And if you like, USADemocracy
will forward your vote to your congressman.
VotingOnline Inc.
takes the USADemocracy concept to the state level in Florida,
and, funding permitting, perhaps to other states. Visitors to
their site at www.statelegislator.com can see Florida bill summaries,
chat about pending legislation and vote their preference on those
bills. James Chapman, president and CEO of the two-person start-up
operation, says he developed the site because "there never is
a clear way to communicate with a legislator." Compared to the
more radical direct democracy enthusiasts, Chapman's dream is
pretty basic. According to his Web site's mission statement, his
goal is to 'provide a vehicle for constituents and legislators
to discuss legislation over the Internet through the use of discussion
boards and surveys."
The site opened
with a media splash at the beginning of the recent session, and
more than 500 users quickly signed on. Then the press coverage
quieted down, and so did site registrations. During the entire
session, only about 825 users joined. Chapman says he will do
things a little differently next session. He has plans for developing
statelegislator.com into a 50-state site where legislators and
constituents compare thoughts and votes on pending legislation.
He also has high hopes for bringing his concept to the county
level.
Chapman and his
Web site did not make a big impact on the 2000 Florida session.
He admits he missed some opportunities and did not have enough
money behind the effort. But the concept of www.statelegislator.com,
with modifications and enhancements, could foreshadow one way
that direct democracy passions and representative democracy traditions
might merge effectively in the future.
Whether radical,
moderate or mainstream, those who support various forms of direct
democracy share common views on three key matters. First, most
harbor dissatisfaction with or distrust of representative democracy.
Says Becker, "All modern representative democracies have their
arteries clogged. What is needed is quadruple bypass surgery."
Second, direct democracy proponents look to the Internet as both
the enabler and motivator of long suppressed public desire to
participate in politics. Writes Neitzke, "The utility of computer
nets for democracy is stark, simple and elegant." Finally, almost
everyone in these camps agrees with Morris that the trend toward
direct democracy is inevitable.
Practical Matters
James Madison,
in his Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote the classic argument for
representative democracy. His words serve as the foundation on
which all defenders of our legislative institutions rest. In this
discourse on the potentially destructive nature of "powerful factions",
Madison concludes that "a pure democracy . . . can admit no cure
for the mischiefs of faction." He adds that "such democracies
have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever
been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as
they have been violent in their deaths."
Representative
democracy, argues Madison, "opens a different prospect, and promises
the cure for which we are seeking." Under a republican form of
government, writes Madison, an "improper or wicked project will
be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular
member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more
likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire
State."
An equally spirited
defense of representative democracy appeared recently on the bookshelves
- Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and political reporter David
Broder's Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power
of Money. Although primarily an exposé on the initiative
movement in America, Broder is clear with readers when he writes,
"The argument of this book is that representative government is
not something to be discarded quite so casually. We need to examine
what really happens in direct legislation by initiative. And we
must ask ourselves about the implications of a weakening of our
republican form of government."
Broder minces
no words in his concern about the popular initiative as it is
used in contemporary politics. "No sooner had the concept of popular
sovereignty been implanted in the political system than clever
politicians realized that the key to power now lay in the manipulation
of public opinion," he writes. Broder warns, "The initiative process
. . . threatens to challenge or even subvert the American system
of government in the next few decades."
Broder echoes
concerns raised by Alan Rosenthal in his book, The Decline
of Representative Democracy. Rosenthal takes a more institutional
look at state legislatures, but his conclusions are similar. In
his introduction, Rosenthal writes, ". . . participatory democracy
(which is not quite 'direct democracy') has been growing in strength
at the expense of representative processes. Government no longer
is conducted with the consent of the governed, according to the
Federalist plan. It is conducted with significant participation
by the governed, and by those who claim to speak for the public's
interest, according to a more populist plan. Representative democracy,
as the states had experienced it for several centuries, is now
in decline."
No doubt, activists
at the various direct democracy institutes and centers and movements
find cause to rejoice at Broder's and Rosenthal's words. From
their perspective, these authors are only confirming what direct
democracy activists work for-the weakening or supplanting of the
legislature and its processes.
On the other hand,
those who seek to defend representative institutions and traditions
have much to ponder. If Madison, Broder and Rosenthal are right,
and if Morris and others also are right about the inevitability
of certain trends, then state legislators, legislative staff and
their small legion of defenders need to put on their reality hats
and get to work. The representative democracy defenders need a
strategy and realistic goals. As a practical matter, this may
require state legislatures to adopt new ways to conduct their
work and develop new ways to interact with the public.
Some Ideas About the Future
There seems to
be little doubt about these things: The public doesn't have high
confidence in their institutions of representative government.
The public also is intrigued by more direct or participative forms
of lawmaking, especially the initiative. As Broder points out
in his book, "In every state I visited in my reporting, the initiative
process was viewed as sacrosanct. In most of them, the legislature
was in disrepute." Further, the Internet poses new opportunities
and expectations for expanded public input into lawmaking and
governance. Finally, there is a growing community of individuals
and organizations ready to make good or evil out of the possibilities
made available by this novel confluence of technology and changing
public perspectives about democracy.
It also seems
clear that the best and most effective advocates for and protectors
of representative democracy will be the institutions themselves
- the state legislatures, city councils and others. Neither Broder,
Rosenthal nor the ghost of James Madison can carry this responsibility,
although their roles are essential. Other champions of legislatures
like former Wyoming U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, Maryland U.S. Senator
Paul Sarbanes and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton have,
through their actions and words, played a role, too. But now it
is time for legislatures to take a stand and adopt a strategy.
Who could have
imagined only a few years ago that on-line, citizen "day traders,"
empowered by the Internet, would mobilize in such numbers that
they would influence the rise and fall of major financial markets?
We have seen how the passions of these investors have transformed
Wall Street and contributed to sometimes radical swings in market
indices. Does it take much, then, to imagine a future where public
policy and government programs are whipped to and fro by similarly
passionate yet fleeting factions?
The future probably
will disappoint those who dream of a world without legislatures.
And it also will come up short for advocates of Madison's ideal.
We will land somewhere in the middle - a point where the public
finds a comfortable balance of direct and representative routes
to governance. State legislatures must take steps to help ensure
that the balance is struck at a point that preserves key institutional
values like deliberation, compromise and trust, and that allows
citizens meaningful ways to practice their civic responsibility
and express their political passions.
Brian Weberg directs NCSL's Legislative
Management program.
Reprinted with permission from State
Legislatures July/August 2000. Copyright 2000 by National Conference
of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. To order copies or to
subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 830-2200.
How
Legislatures Can Co-opt Direct Democracy
By Brian Weberg
Just as legislatures
must strive to "change the public," as political scientist Alan
Rosenthal says, so must they acknowledge and embrace, in practical
and strategic ways, the public's real expectations and apparent
zeal about technology and participation.
Legislatures should
be willing to undertake internal reforms that make them more accessible
and identifiable to the public. Here are some ideas about what
those strategies might include:
- Expand legislative Web sites
to become on-line policy voting centers, like James Chapman's
statelegislator.com. Such interactive legislative Web sites
would connect citizens to legislators and legislation in political
ways and provide more than the traditional elements, like bill
status, committee schedules and member rosters. They might include
legislator chat rooms, pro and con bill analyses, subject matter
research links, voting records analysis, district-level customization
options, and ticklers to users about impending legislative deadlines,
bill introductions and other procedural matters.
- Endorse and promote on-line
voting systems for legislative elections. Public demand for
this innovation is likely to swell. By taking the lead on this
election reform, state legislatures will demonstrate a commitment
to public participation and responsiveness.
- Provide the public with legislative
information. Make available voting records, meeting schedules,
calendars, social events and other legislative records and activities.
- Offer TV or Web-based access
to committee meetings, floor sessions and other government events.
These efforts are in place in many states, perhaps most notably
through www.tvw.org in Washington.
- Develop strong leaders who are
recognized as spokesmen for the institution. It might be time
to get past the fear of strong legislative leadership. The public
connects with individual personalities, not institutions. Legislatures
need visible leaders who carry, and are identified with, a positive
institutional message.
- Maintain a "high touch" legislature.
High tech and its Internet too are keys to connecting with citizens.
But too much technology between legislatures and the public
can be detrimental. The lure of technological solutions to citizen
involvement is intoxicating. But virtual legislatures will fail.
Citizens need personal contact with legislators, and legislators
need personal contact with citizens. It is at this level of
personal contact that legislatures establish their authenticity
and best demonstrate their democratic virtues.
- Extend the length of severe
term limit provisions. This idea might stir some trouble. However,
it is becoming clear that draconian term limits that allow only
a few years of service do no service to anyone except those
who wish to weaken the legislative institution. The public is
beginning to get this message, too.
- Develop a strong institutional
ethic, not just strong ethics laws. No amount of citizen education
can overcome the damage done by scandal or the ugliness of campaign-motivated
attacks on people or the legislature. Legislatures should communicate
to the public their position and commitment on the ethical conduct
of members and staff. This does not require new laws, just new
kinds of communication.
Brian Weberg directs NCSL's Legislative Management program.
Reprinted with permission from State Legislatures July/August
2000. Copyright 2000 by National Conference of State Legislatures.
All rights reserved. To order copies or to subscribe, contact
the marketing department at (303) 830-2200.
Task Force Concludes:
Direct Democracy Is the Future
An NCSL task force recently completed
a two-year project on the future of the state legislature. It
concluded that direct democracy was a crucial variable in how
state legislatures will look 25 years from now. The group developed
four scenarios of the future, two in which direct democracy was
heavily practiced by the public and two where direct democracy
was not used very much. Almost everyone who has seen the scenarios,
from legislative leaders to staff to lobbyists, agree that those
with high direct democracy usage are most likely to reflect the
world we will live in.
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 booksùa 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 19legislatures, 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 æ80s
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 governorÆs 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.
| LEGISLATIVE
CONTROL |
| Republicans |
Democrats |
Split |
Undecided |
Nonpartisan |
| Alaska |
Florida |
Alabama |
Arkansas |
Arizona |
Colorado |
Washington |
Nebraska |
| Idaho |
Iowa |
California |
Connecticut |
Delaware |
Illinois |
|
|
| Kansas |
Michigan |
Georgia |
Hawaii |
Indiana |
Kentucky |
|
|
| Montana |
New
Hampshire |
Louisiana |
Maryland |
Maine |
Minnesota |
|
|
| New
Jersey |
North
Dakota |
Massachusetts |
Mississippi |
Missouri |
Nevada |
|
|
| Ohio |
Oregon |
New
Mexico |
North
Carolina |
New
York |
South
Carolina |
|
|
| Pennsylvania |
South
Dakota |
Oklahoma |
Rhode
Island |
Texas |
Vermont |
|
|
| Utah |
Virginia |
Tennessee |
West
Virginia |
Wisconsin |
|
|
|
| Wyoming |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHANGES
BETWEEN 1998 AND 2000 ELECTIONS
(INCLUDES
1999 ELECTIONS)
|
| Republican
Gains (Losses) |
House |
Senate |
Total |
| Nation |
45 |
20 |
65 |
| South |
35 |
11 |
46 |
| East |
5 |
2 |
7 |
| Midwest |
5 |
8 |
13 |
| West |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
Source:
NCSL
|
Reprinted with permission from State
Legislatures December 2000. Copyright 2000 by National Conference
of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. To order copies or
to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 830-2200.
BACK TO
TOP
|
|
|
