Advertisement
 
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsParties

Parties put money in statehouse races that could determine congressional districts

Redistricting is arcane but has huge consequences. Both parties are channeling money to state parties and lavishly funding statehouse candidates in 'the hidden national elections of 2010.'

September 12, 2010|By Mark Z. Barabak and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Gahanna, Ohio, and Washington — Nancy Garland calls herself Ohio's "listening legislator" and as she knocked on doors in suburban Columbus she got an earful: about water bills, a new bike trail, the cost of police cruisers, construction on busy Hamilton Road.

She listened, nodded, touted her work on a bill to ban texting while driving and made a brief reelection pitch, saying that after one term in the statehouse she was just getting started. "Keep in touch," the Democrat told a woman last week, after discussing schools for her autistic child. "There's more we can do."

The issues may be parochial and Garland's canvassing may seem far removed from the political struggles of Washington. But her prospecting is part of a much larger battle: a fight between the two major parties over the once-a-decade redrawing of the nation's congressional boundaries.

The process is arcane and easily overshadowed. Insiders, however, understand the enormous consequences, and that is why both sides are pouring tens of millions of dollars into the fight, channeling huge sums to state parties and lavishly funding legislative candidates in what Tom Hofeller, a Republican consultant, calls "the hidden national elections of 2010."

"It is not the battle for seats in the House and Senate that will decide which party dominates the nation's political process," Hofeller wrote in a strategic analysis for GOP leaders. Rather, it is the fight for 37 governorships and control of 20 or so legislative chambers across the country, including the lower house in Ohio, where Garland serves as part of a thin Democratic majority.

"The outcome of this battle will determine the electoral playing field for the next decade," Hofeller said, and Democrats readily agree.

Each decade, the 435 House seats are reapportioned to reflect population changes among the 50 states. When the census is complete, the Sunbelt is likely to gain seats at the expense of the Northeast and Midwest, the pattern of the last half century. ( California's delegation is expected to remain at 53 seats.)

In most states, it is then up to legislators to draw new congressional districts, subject to gubernatorial veto. That explains the political fight outside Columbus — where the two parties plan to spend a combined $1.2 million. It is why spending may exceed $4 million for a state Senate seat in rural upstate New York and $4 million for another on Long Island.

Generally speaking, strategists say, campaign budgets will double in targeted races compared with non-redistricting years.

With the majority party in control, an artful jiggle of a line here or the shift of a few precincts there can mean the difference between a Republican-leaning district and one likely to elect a Democrat; multiplied dozens of times, that can determine who runs the U.S. House.

"Whoever has the pen in hand has the opportunity," said Thomas M. Reynolds, a former congressman and vice chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, or RSLC, which plans to spend more than $40 million to influence redistricting.

New campaign finance laws prevent the parties from accepting big-dollar contributions. So instead, they are leaning heavily on outside groups, directed by some of the parties' top strategists and funded by wealthy donors, labor unions and corporations.

"It is a gift that will keep on giving," Ed Gillespie, head of the RSLC, told a Washington gathering of potential donors. He suggested that $1 spent today on drawing a safe congressional seat would save many times the cost of winning a competitive race later. "This is one of the best investments you can make."

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, or DLCC, has budgeted $20 million for state races while allied groups, the Foundation for the Future and a separate redistricting trust, plan to spend another $20 million on map-drawing and legal expenses.

(In California, a November ballot measure would give the line-drawing powers to an independent commission, as happens in about a dozen states.)

After substantial gains over the last two decades, Democrats control 26 state legislatures while the GOP holds 14. Statehouses in nine states are split, with one chamber controlled by each party. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.

With political currents running strongly their way, Republicans believe they can pick up 10 legislative chambers and take a majority of governorships, locking in their advantage for years to come. Democrats say they will preserve most of their majorities.

"We had great victories over the past three election cycles and that didn't happen by accident," said Michael Sargeant, executive director of the DLCC and head of the Democrats' redistricting effort. In fact, while the two parties are roughly even in fundraising, Democrats may have the edge in ground-level organizing.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|