The Stealth Races

Beneath the national media’s radar, a fierce struggle is underway for control of dozens of state legislatures. The results may determine which party controls the US House of Representatives for the next 10 years.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


While most media attention remains riveted on the roller-coaster ride of the presidential race, a quiet but critically important war is being waged for control of the 50 state legislatures.

In nearly a third of the states, the major parties are within a bare half-dozen seats of one another in one chamber. Control of those houses has national implications, thanks to a little-recognized fact of American politics: if a party controls both houses of the state legislature as well as the Governor’s seat at the end of each decade, it wins the power to redraw its state’s legislative district lines, both for the state legislature and for the US House of Representatives. That, in turn, can determine which party controls the US House.

By using techniques like “packing” — whereby the lines are drawn so that large numbers of your political opponents’ voters are packed into a few districts — those controlling the process can dramatically heighten their chances at winning the remaining districts.

In California, for example, Democrats regained the Governor’s mansion in 1998, matching their control of the state house and senate, and thereby gaining power over California’s redistricting for the first time in 20 years. Democrats gave abrupt notice that certain Republican Congresspeople could start looking for new jobs. “If James Rogan is still in office after 2002, he will be representing a district in the Pacific Ocean,” crowed one Democratic consultant.

Analysts in both parties say control over the 2001 redistricting process will give a party such an advantage that the state elections in 1998 and 2000 will determine who holds a majority in the US House through 2010. A handful of voters in 2000 may be determining representation for voters well into the next decade.

“In so many ways, redistricting will determine the future control of Congress,” says Kevin Mack, who heads the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. Some observers say the 1994 elections — when Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years — was due in part to the last redistricting in 1991.

Democrats control both houses in 19 state legislatures, Republicans in 17, and 13 are split (Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is nonpartisan but leans conservative). In some 15 states, the majorities in at least one house are narrow enough that both parties have a chance at taking a majority on Election Day. Among them are big states such as Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Given the narrow margin of the GOP’s House majority now — 222 to 211 with two independents — even a small shift could have big implications for national politics. Yet without the personality contest of the presidential contest to attract media attention, it’s treated like political junkie trivia rather than prime time news.

Part of the problem is most voters aren’t in on the game, as the battle boils down to only a handful of close races in each state. That’s because most legislative districts were drawn in the last redistricting to be non-competitive. This small number of close races is being fought over furiously. Huge gobs of soft money have been raised and spent in nasty sound bite campaigns, as Democrats and Republicans try to sway undecided voters in these swing races.

The close breakdown at the state level — like the tight battles for Congress and the presidency — reflects the nation’s political balance. Essentially we have two minority parties right now. Neither party has a majority of the national electorate on their side. So the tightrope balance and the stakes drive up the cost, and the acrimony, of these elections.

Public attention may be riveted by the presidential face-off, but the conflict for control of state capitals and redistricting may have longer-term partisan implications. And the real losers in all this usually are the ordinary voters, who typically end up bunkered down in a safe, one-party district where voting amounts to ratifying the candidate chosen to dominate their district.

So stay tuned to those legislative races and then, keep an eye on those legislators next year. That’s when redistricting — and the often bitter battle for future power — starts in all 50 states.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate