• 15 incumbent versus incumbent contests
• Freshman targeted more often
• Table of pairings
• Preview of remaining incumbent versus incumbent battles
• Links to previous Election Insights articles involving incumbent versus incumbent races
• Behind the Numbers with Michael: 39 (a tribute to Sally Ride)

Reapportionment and redistricting happen every ten years (or at least they are supposed to happen only once every ten years) and the results of moving district boundaries can cause confusion, tough decisions, and bad feelings. Not just bad, but long lasting and deep feelings that just will not ever go away. As a result of the most recent redistricting, there will be 15 contests involving 13 pairs in 11 different states of incumbent versus incumbent races for the U.S. House. This number would have been significantly higher except for the fact that many incumbents decided to retire, run for a different office or literally moved in order to run in a different district.

Nearly one-third (9 of 26) of the incumbents involved in these contests are serving in their first full term. Freshmen (or those in their first full term like Rep. Critz) are often easier targets in the redistricting process to end up with less favorable districts. They have less seniority, less power and often not as strong of relationships. Even though three of the nine incumbents are in states where the new lines are drawn by Independent Redistricting Commissions, do not be lulled into believing that “Independent” means blind to who the incumbents are and absent the partisan politics involved in playing cartographer that occurs when state legislatures draw the lines.

Another motive often at play by those drawing the lines is to eliminate incumbents who are not as well thought of as others in their delegation (OH-09) or force the retirement of someone who should step aside (IL-16). Redistricting is a game of power, control and self-interest for elected officials. For House members, it is often a game of self-preservation that results in many members hiring others to lobby on their behalf to protect their district lines and, therefore, their chances to stay in Congress. Can you think of any other issue where a member would hire outside help to show up at the statehouse?

Due to the new top two primary system in California, the incumbents paired against each other in CA-30 and CA-44 faced each other in the Primary Election where they were the top vote getters and thus advanced to face each other again in the General Election. Twice the fun, twice the pain. Louisiana holds their Primary Election on November 6 (the same date as the General Election in the other 49 states) and if no candidate crosses the 50% mark, they will hold a Runoff Election on December 1.

Here are the 13 incumbent versus incumbent pairings in 2012:

August will feature the four remaining incumbent versus incumbent primary contests before the November elections. While each one of these contests will likely headline the election on that date, the Arizona battle between Reps. Quayle (R) and Schweikert (R) may be the most competitive, expensive and watched battle on the entire list. The award for “being left without a chair” clearly goes to Rep. Carnahan (D) in MO-01 who was on the wrong side of a deal cut by Missouri State Senate Democrats to complete redistricting. We will cover each of these contests in future editions of Election Insights.

Click on the state to read previous Election Insights articles on primary races already conducted involving incumbent versus incumbent: California, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

39

On Monday, America lost a hero, a role model, and our first female to travel into space. Astronaut Sally Ride made her first of two trips into space on June 18, 1983 aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger. At just 32 years old, she is also the youngest American to travel into space.

Today, there are 39 members (11 in the Senate and 28 in the House) who were serving the day Sally Ride made history back in 1983. Of those 39 members, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH09) is the lone female in the House (Sens. Mikulski and Snowe served in the House in 1983 and now serve in the Senate). Kaptur began her service on January 3, 1983, just five months before Ride’s trip. In an interesting tie to this week’s Election Insights, she is also one of the members who was involved in an incumbent versus incumbent battle this year solidly defeating Rep. Dennis Kucinich. (Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA30) began his House service the same day as Kaptur and is embattled in the best named incumbent versus incumbent contest this year: Berman-Sherman).

Sally Ride was the first of 45 female American Astronauts to travel into space. In 1983, there were 24 women serving in Congress; today there are 92 (17 in the Senate and 75 in the House).

11

In 2012, there will be 11 states holding an election for Governor. Paying attention to these 11 winners will be important because odds are high that you will see future U.S. Senators, cabinet members and even names that will eventually appear on the ticket for president/vice-president.

In a few weeks I will go over the top gubernatorial contests this year and give you the likelihood that Republicans improve/Democrats gain on control of the highest state office (currently 29 Republican, 20 Democrat and 1 Independent).

States holding races for governor in 2012 – DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA and WV

• Runoff election is unique to southern states
• 6 runoff elections held so far, 4 to go
• Cost and relevance leading to less support for runoffs
• Over $2.7 million spent on one North Carolina House race
• How many gubernatorial elections are there in 2011?

As a native of South Carolina there are many southern customs I fully embrace: college football, tailgating and anything fried to name a few. Another southern tradition, political in nature yet fading in popularity, is the runoff election. A runoff election occurs when none of the candidates in a race reach the required vote threshold to either win outright or advance on to a general election. Ten states will hold runoff elections this year, 11 including the Virgin Islands. Nearly all of these states are southern states or states located in the Sunbelt (exception is South Dakota). North Carolina, the sixth state this year to hold a runoff, held its election last night- see Michael’s remarks below for further analysis. Still to come are runoff elections for Texas – July 31, Georgia – August 21, Oklahoma – August 28, the Virgin Islands – September 22, and Louisiana – December 8.

The history of the runoff election is mired deep in southern racial politics. Most southern states implemented a runoff system in the early 20th century in an effort to broaden the base of the historically dominant, and primarily white, Democratic Party. By the late 20th century, the runoff election evolved into a little-known, yet very effective political procedure used by state legislatures to benefit one party over another in an election. For example, depending on which party has legislative control, modifications in runoff requirements have been made to ensure a particular candidate makes it through to the general election or an opposing candidate does not, only to change again the next time party control switches.

Over time, runoff elections have begun losing support. States like North Carolina have revised their process, and in 2005 Florida was the first southern state to get rid of the practice all together. Proponents of ending runoff elections in Florida said improved voting technology, the ease of early voting, as well as complying with federal rules to get ballots to overseas voters on time, all contributed to their decision to end the process. Additionally, as states try and balance budget deficits, paying millions of dollars for an additional election with traditionally low turnout seems less financially prudent than in years past. All of these factors could result in the end of the runoff election for other states in years to come.

Redistricting in North Carolina should prove to be the best net advantage for the GOP of any state and the General Election field is now set after three congressional runoff elections were held yesterday.

The fight to face off against two-term incumbent Rep. Larry Kissell (D) in NC-08 provided the most fireworks and they certainly were not the ones you find in the post July 4 sale bin. According to media reports, the two GOP candidates spent over $1 million with outside groups kicking in another $1.7 million. To date, this is the most expensive House race in 2012. On the winning side with 63.7% of the vote was Richard Hudson (R), a former congressional aide and the House leadership who strongly supported his efforts. On the short end with just 36.3% was Tea Party candidate Scott Keadle (R) and groups like the Club for Growth. Hudson will now face Kissell in the General Election in a newly drawn district that favors the GOP picking up a seat. Unsuccessful 2008 gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory (R) received 54.6% while John McCain (R) received 57.5% for president in a state Barack Obama (D) won.

One last note of interest in NC-08 that I picked up while in Charlotte earlier this week was that the 8th District Black Leadership Caucus introduced a write-in candidate (Dobbins Heights Mayor and Richmond County Democratic Party Chair Antonio Blue) on the same day Kissell voted to repeal Obama’s health care plan.

In NC-09, Robert Pittenger (R) defeated Jim Pendergraph (R) by a narrow 52.9% to 47.1% margin and will face Jennifer Roberts (D) in the General Election. Pittenger is a three-term state senator in the real estate sector and will be strongly favored in this GOP district where many Republican candidates hit 60%. In the final Runoff Election, real estate investor Mark Meadows (R) easily defeated Vance Patterson (R) in NC-11 and will be a favorite to win the General Election over Hayden Rogers (D), Rep. Heath Shuler’s chief of staff.

26

The 2010 and 2011 elections at the state legislative level saw dramatic changes for control of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country. A total of 26 state legislative chambers moved away from Democrat control to either outright Republican control or a tied chamber. The 2012 Recall Elections in Wisconsin resulted in a change from Republican to Democrat control.

We will be closely watching to see how many of these 26 (plus a few others) move back to Democrat control or even become more Republican following the 2012 General Election. Overall, the GOP improved their chances at the state legislative level as a result of redistricting.

Both State Chamber Changed – AL, LA, ME, MN, NC, NH & WI
State Senate Only Changes – AK, NY, & VA
State Lower Chamber Only Changes – CO, IA, IN, MI, MS, MT, OH, OR, PA

It’s certainly not breaking news that our nation’s current fiscal trajectory is unsustainable. Terms like “fiscal cliff”, “mountain of debt” and “financial disaster” are being used with increasing frequency as we approach the January 1 deadline which will automatically cut $1.2 trillion of the federal budget while simultaneously allowing several tax cuts to expire. The economy is fragile, job growth is slow and Congress seems hell-bent on putting party before policy. But despite all the doom and gloom attitudes here inside the beltway, I am optimistic about our nation’s recovery. At BIPAC we’ve always known the solutions to our fiscal problems are not going to come  from Washington. BIPAC President Greg Casey believes the answer “lies with the American public in places outside of Washington where the demand for statesmanship, accountability and reform will take root.” This reform is already transpiring in meaningful and impactful ways at the local level all across the country.

On June 5th, California’s 2nd and 3rd largest cities successfully passed pension reform measures on the ballot. The two initiatives, Proposition B in San Diego and Measure B in San Jose, overhauled retirement benefits for city employees in an effort to bring ballooning pension obligations under control. The pro-business group The Lincoln Club, BIPAC’s local deployment partner for San Diego County, was a key leader within the coalition group pushing the citywide reform with President T.J. Zane managing the issue campaign. Over two-thirds of the voters approved the measure in San Diego after it was brought to light that payments to the city’s retirement fund soared from $43 million in 1999 to $231 million in 2012 and the city’s Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) had exceeded $2 billion.

Proposition B, which was supported by Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders and several business associations, freezes the base pay used for pension calculations over the next 6 years, eliminates pension spiking (a tactic in which public employees artificially increase their final salaries in order to boost their pensions), and puts all new hires, except for police officers, into 401-k style retirement plans. The reform is expected to save the city over $90 million after five years, and as much as $2 billion after 27 years.

The effort to take on pension reform is by no means limited to one party. San Jose’s initiative will implement similar reforms and was enthusiastically supported by Democrat Mayor Chuck Reed. Measure B will require current workers to pay up to 16% of their salaries to keep their retirement plan or accept more modest benefits, and new employees will get less generous benefits as they are hired. San Jose’s total unfunded accrued liability (UAAL) is around $3 billion. Past efforts to cut pay and increase taxes were simply not enough to tackle the multi-billion dollar burden.

Public labor unions led the opposition in both cities, but with a super-majority of voters approving the reform in San Diego and 70% approving in San Jose, it was evident that voters welcomed the reforms. The results make it clear that both parties are willing to undertake — and the public backs — efforts to roll back a generation of public employee union protectionism to make real progress in dealing with the economic realities of the present day.

The wins in San Jose and San Diego are part of a pension reform movement which is spreading across the country and one that is seeing significant bipartisan support. On June 5th, the same day of the Prop B and Measure B victories, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa- a Democrat, announced his support for pension reform. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (also a Democrat) is taking on public unions in Chicago to fight for pension reform as well. Currently Chicago’s unfunded accrued liability (UAAL) is a staggering $6.9 billion. However, unlike San Diego and San Jose where reform can be put to the voters in a ballot initiative, Mayor Emanuel needs gubernatorial and legislative approval. And in Knoxville, Tennessee the city council is working towards placing a pension reform initiative on the ballot this fall.

Supporters of the reforms in California are hoping the success will be a catalyst for change at the state legislative level and that it will become a model of responsibility at the national level. Municipal leaders are taking political risks by tackling an overwhelmingly complicated and difficult policy problem. Their courage and relentlessness is certainly to be admired. With state budgets collectively reaching over $4 trillion in debt, a significant portion of which is due to unfunded pension liabilities, the idea of standing idly by is not an option.

As members of Congress and Washington insiders look for ways to vilify members of the opposite party, I would encourage them to take note of what is happening in their home states and home towns. The bipartisan nature of reform we’re seeing at the local level is due to voters and elected officials acting upon the fiscal realities of today, and it’s here that the solutions to our economic woes can be found.