State Legislatures 1993-2017

[TDAS04]

Somewhat interesting that Florida was the first Southern legislature to go Republican, considering that it was the most Democratic at the presidential level in 2000 and 2004.  I guess the influx of Northerners that made it one of the more GOP-friendly Southern states initially would eventually make it one of the more liberal (in presidential elections) in the 1990s and 2000s.

[Skill and Chance]

Somewhat interesting that Florida was the first Southern legislature to go Republican, considering that it was the most Democratic at the presidential level in 2000 and 2004.  I guess the influx of Northerners that made it one of the more GOP-friendly Southern states initially would eventually make it one of the more liberal (in presidential elections) in the 1990s and 2000s.

Yes, there is a notable block of Northerners that split their tickets in the opposite way Blue Dog Democrats do.  Just look at the NY state senate and the near 60% Obama state legislative seats in suburban NOVA still held by Republicans.   

[smoltchanov]

Somewhat interesting that Florida was the first Southern legislature to go Republican, considering that it was the most Democratic at the presidential level in 2000 and 2004.  I guess the influx of Northerners that made it one of the more GOP-friendly Southern states initially would eventually make it one of the more liberal (in presidential elections) in the 1990s and 2000s.

IMHO - not so surprising as it seems. Because of constant influx of the Northerners Florida's legislature was more Republican (though still majority Democratic)  then other southern legislatures since late 60th. In first election after "one man one vote" redistricting of 1966-67 Florida elected 28 Democrats and 20 Republicans to it's (then) 48-member state Senate. At that time Alabama, Mississipi, Louisiana and Arkansas had barely 1-3 Republican state legislators. At the same time this northern influx made Florida one of the least "Southern" (politically) states in the South - at least since the above mentioned redistricting and complete demise of ultraconservative "Pork chop gang" in state legislature. So, it's voting patterns are very different from "typical South". The addition of lot of Cubans, and weakness of Florida's state Democratic party helped too: Republicans now occupy a lot of Democratic-leaning (on most levels) districts now, while "vice versa" is almost nonexistent.

[Ebsy]

The incompetence of the Florida Democratic Party is rather staggering.

[Skill and Chance]

Any background on whether Florida Cubans could/couldn't vote prior to 1965?  Did it depend on the county?

[TDAS04]

Any background on whether Florida Cubans could/couldn't vote prior to 1965?  Did it depend on the county?

I don't think race would have prevented most of them from being able to vote.  Most Cuban Americans are white (of unmixed Spanish ancestry).  They could pass as Italians.

[Skill and Chance]

Any background on whether Florida Cubans could/couldn't vote prior to 1965?  Did it depend on the county?

I don't think race would have prevented most of them from being able to vote.  Most Cuban Americans are white (of unmixed Spanish ancestry).  They could pass as Italians.

I understand that lighter Hispanic people were generally considered white in the Southwest, but I do wonder if that treatment extended to culturally Southern states?  Also, while someone who looked like Marco Rubio may have fared OK, I have to imagine someone who looked like Susana Martinez would have been subject to serious harassment in a majority white area in that era.  Anyone know how Tejanos faired in early 20th century Texas?  Were they generally able or unable to participate politically?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Another reason why Democrats will regret what happened on Nov 8 1994 for a long time

[njwes]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

[Skill and Chance]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

[RINO Tom]

Democrats REALLY p*ssed the South down their leg in the 2000s...

[jaichind]

Democrats REALLY p*ssed the South down their leg in the 2000s...

Yes.  That is my impression as well.  It seems to be an axiom that the party that holds the presidency loses out at the State Legislative level.  The data seems to bear this out in the 1992-2014 period.  During 1992-2000 the GOP gained across the board as well as the 2008-2014 period.  Same is true for Dems in 2000-2008 period EXCEPT for the South.  The GOP continued to gain in the South in the 2000-2008 period despite holding the presidency.  That I think is the key ingredient leading to this imbalance today.   

[RFayette]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

I think "Evangelicals" should be lumped in with #1; the homeschooling movement is pretty strong in a lot of the South and Midwest, and many of them are Baptist or nondenominational Christian. 

[Skill and Chance]

Democrats REALLY p*ssed the South down their leg in the 2000s...

Yes.  That is my impression as well.  It seems to be an axiom that the party that holds the presidency loses out at the State Legislative level.  The data seems to bear this out in the 1992-2014 period.  During 1992-2000 the GOP gained across the board as well as the 2008-2014 period.  Same is true for Dems in 2000-2008 period EXCEPT for the South.  The GOP continued to gain in the South in the 2000-2008 period despite holding the presidency.  That I think is the key ingredient leading to this imbalance today.   

Southern Democrats at the state legislative level were still effectively a populist 3rd party straight through to 2010.  During 2000-2008, they found it particularly difficult to oppose a Southern populist president, even though he was a Republican.  That's not to say that they would be doing the same things as Tea Party Republicans if the still held power, but they largely did not agree with the Obama agenda and would not be passing it at the state level if they were still in control.

[Skill and Chance]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

I think "Evangelicals" should be lumped in with #1; the homeschooling movement is pretty strong in a lot of the South and Midwest, and many of them are Baptist or nondenominational Christian. 

That's true to a degree.  In my experience, the "average" Evangelical wife seems to work part time for <1/2 her husband's pay while raising 2-4 kids, with the very most conservative doing the homeschooling and the 5+ kid families (remember mainstream Evangelical churches do not oppose birth control per se).       

Edit: I should also note #3 includes farming/ranching/agribusiness in my mind.

[RFayette]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

I think "Evangelicals" should be lumped in with #1; the homeschooling movement is pretty strong in a lot of the South and Midwest, and many of them are Baptist or nondenominational Christian. 

That's true to a degree.  In my experience, the "average" Evangelical wife seems to work part time for <1/2 her husband's pay while raising 2-4 kids, with the very most conservative doing the homeschooling and the 5+ kid families (remember mainstream Evangelical churches do not oppose birth control per se).       

Edit: I should also note #3 includes farming/ranching/agribusiness in my mind.

OK, that makes more sense.  That being said, I bet most liberal, stay-at-home "Ivy league wives" do at least some paid work outside the house likewise.

[Skill and Chance]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

I think "Evangelicals" should be lumped in with #1; the homeschooling movement is pretty strong in a lot of the South and Midwest, and many of them are Baptist or nondenominational Christian. 

That's true to a degree.  In my experience, the "average" Evangelical wife seems to work part time for <1/2 her husband's pay while raising 2-4 kids, with the very most conservative doing the homeschooling and the 5+ kid families (remember mainstream Evangelical churches do not oppose birth control per se).       

Edit: I should also note #3 includes farming/ranching/agribusiness in my mind.

OK, that makes more sense.  That being said, I bet most liberal, stay-at-home "Ivy league wives" do at least some paid work outside the house likewise.

The tax code is a major player in this.  If David and Mary Smith have 2 children and David has a normal $50K job and Mary has the ability to make $20K part time, the family will unambiguously be materially better off with Mary doing at least some formal work.

If James and Sarah Williams have 2 children and James makes $200K either from a highly competitive 80 hour/week job or by running an elite small business, after accounting for childcare costs, married filing jointly, housing costs being 2-5X lower 30-50 miles away from the city center and high-paying clients James would lose without "I only see my kids on the weekend" business travel, Sarah is effectively facing a 100% tax rate on any normal range income she earns.  She probably unofficially runs her husband's business, but it makes no sense for her to have any IRS income (assuming she has not signed away property rights in the event of divorce).  This effect can hit surprisingly normal families in cheap housing areas of Middle America.

[jaichind]

Even though in theory the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature is non-partisan, in practice each member does have a partisan affliction.  Right now it is something like 35-14 in favor of GOP which for the entire 1992-2014 period I believe the GOP has a majority the entire time.  So Nebraska should really be colored blue the entire period in my view.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Even though in theory the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature is non-partisan, in practice each member does have a partisan affliction.  Right now it is something like 35-14 in favor of GOP which for the entire 1992-2014 period I believe the GOP has a majority the entire time.  So Nebraska should really be colored blue the entire period in my view.

The nonpartisan aspect of the Nebraska legislature has basically become a sham. They've tried to do some very partisan things in recent years, such as abolishing the split electoral vote system. But it might be even worse if legislators were elected on a partisan ballot like most states.

So I wouldn't mind seeing other states switch to a nonpartisan ballot, because that might actually improve their terrible legislatures.

[Frodo]

Here is the current makeup of the Louisiana legislature:

House

Republicans: 58
Democrats: 44
independents: 2

Senate

Republicans: 26
Democrats: 13

With term limits set to remake the legislature, what do you think the makeup of it is going to be next January?  Are Republicans set to expand their majorities even more?

[smoltchanov]

^ Filing deadline in Louisiana is very late (September 10th), so we don't even know now who will run there. But most likely yes: in Louisiana we still have considerable number of white Democrats elected to House from solid Republican (on Presidential level) districts (especially - in Cajun country, which turned solid right recently). The "big wave" in the state was in 2007, when term limits first came into effect, so - next one is expected in 2019, but even this year Republicans can gain 1-2 seats in Senate (Nevers's and, may be, LaFleur's) and 3-4 in House. The only chance Democrat have is to tie Republicans candidates to unpopular Jindal.

P.S. (for comparison). 7 state Senators and 14 House members are term-limited this year, 19 state Senators (almost half of chamber) and 47 House members (about 45% of chamber) - in 2019. After 2019 it may happen that "conservative-leaning" (and mostly white) faction of Democratic caucus will be reduced to 2-3 persons, and caucus (already majority Black) will become overwhelmingly Black... Usual political polarization of Deep South: white-majority district voting for white Republicans (usually - very conservative), black-majority - for black Democrats (usually - more or less liberal), and no one else...

[ElectionsGuy]

There is plenty of room for improvements in the House, many red seat Democrats.

[smoltchanov]

There is plenty of room for improvements in the House, many red seat Democrats.

Of course. There is even a Democrat in Louisiana's House sitting in a seat that gave Obama about 16% of votes, and another about 19% Obama seat with unopposed in 2011 Democrat. Plus - about 22%, about 25% and about 29% seats. I will not even mention 30-36% Obama seats here...... Mostly in Acadiana or nearby...

[ElectionsGuy]

According to Daily Kos's great broken down results by legislative districts...

Senate:

3 red seat Democrats (one 55% Romney, two 66%)
1 blue seat Republican (62% Obama)

House:

13 red seat Democrats (ranging from 55% to 81% Romney)
1 purple seat Democrat
2 purple seat Republicans

The two indies in the house are also in strong Republican districts.

[smoltchanov]

I use the same source..

Some Details:

"Blue seat Republican" is a conservative Black, running now for Lt. Governor. He was elected as a Democrat (the only way to be elected in this district) in 2011, and switched later. This district will go Democratic in October or November. But another seat, SD-12, will almost surely go Republican (even very socially conservative (but - at least somewhat populist) Democrat Nevers barely won it then). So, it will, most likely, be a wash (or +1 Republican) in state Senate, but at least +3 - 5 Republican in House (unless Democrats will find locally popular conservative candidates)