Ballot Measure Update

By Louis Jacobson

Here are some polls on statewide ballot measures that were released too late to be included in the Rothenberg Political Report's original ballot measure rundown.

Of special note are one poll which shows Arizona's same-sex marriage ban trailing badly (though another poll has it comfortably ahead); a second recent survey in blue-state Oregon that has a parental-consent-for-abortion measure up by 20 points; and big leads for two measures that would require government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations.

In addition, conservatives will be happy with some of the poll results on immigration restrictions and an effort to curb affirmative action, while liberals will be pleased to find minimum-wage hikes winning easily in two states won twice by President Bush.

Abortion

• Oregon Measure 43. Requires waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Riley Research, Oct.-51% yes, 31% no. Previous: Davis-Hibbitts-Midghall for Oregonian/KATU, Sep.--54% yes, 35% no.
  

Stem cell research

• Missouri Amendment 2. Allows embryonic stem cell research. Research 2000 for St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV, Oct.-51% yes, 35% no. Previous: Research 2000 for St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV, August-- 58% yes, 37% no.

Affirmative action

• Michigan Proposal 2. Bars state universities from discriminating on basis of race. EPIC/MRA, Oct.-50% yes, 41% no. Previous: EPIC/MRA for Detroit News/WXYZ, Sep.--48% yes, 37% no. Detroit Free Press, August--41% yes, 43% no.

Same-sex marriage

• Arizona Prop 107. Bans same-sex marriage. ASU/KAET-TV, Oct.-30% yes, 56% no. Northern Arizona University, Oct.-51% yes, 42% no.
• Virginia Question 1. Bans same-sex marriage. Washington Post, Oct. - 53% yes, 43% no. Mason-Dixon, Oct.-52% yes, 42% no.
• Wisconsin Question 1. Bans same-sex marriage. St. Norbert College, Oct.-51% yes, 44% no. Previous: Diversified Research for wispolitics.com, Sept.--53% yes, 39% no.
  

Minimum wage

• Arizona Prop 202. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation. Northern Arizona University, Oct.-73% yes, 22% no.
• Montana I-151. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation. MSU-Billings, Oct.-76% yes, 14% no. Previous: Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--73% yes, 16% no.
  

Immigration

• Arizona Prop 102. Bars illegal immigrants from winning punitive damages. ASU/KAET-TV, Oct.-55% yes, 28% no.
• Arizona Prop 103. Makes English the official state language. ASU/KAET-TV, Oct.-- 63% yes, 28% no.
• Arizona Prop 300. Bars illegal aliens from receiving state subsidies for education and child care. ASU/KAET-TV, Oct.-- 45% yes, 38% no. Nothern Arizona University, Oct.-70% yes, 22% no.
  

Eminent domain only

• Florida Amendment 8. Bars eminent domain for private purposes. Mason-Dixon, Oct.-51% yes, 25% no. Previous: Zogby for Miami Herald, Sept.--55 percent yes, 36 percent no. Mason-Dixon, Sept.--54% yes, 22% no.

Property takings

• Arizona Prop 207. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations. Northern Arizona University, Oct.-53% yes, 29% no.
• Washington I-933. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations. Elway, Sep.-47% yes, 31% no.
  

Government ethics

• Montana I-153. Two-year revolving-door restrictions on lobbyists. MSU-Billings, Oct.-71% yes, 18% no. Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--70% yes, 15% no.

Candidates Matter Some Places, but Not Everywhere

By Stuart Rothenberg

Two factors have come together to enhance Democratic prospects for a major House sweep — and neither one has much to do with the quality of Democratic recruiting in the two dozen or so top-tier Democratic House opportunities.

First, a handful of Republican House nominees with considerable political baggage have created competitive races for Democrats in places they couldn’t have anticipated. And second, even relatively weak second- and third-tier Democratic candidates are in competitive races because of the developing political wave.

If the GOP loses seats in places such as Idaho’s 1st district, Colorado’s 5th and Michigan’s 7th, you are going to hear plenty of complaining by moderate and establishment Republicans about the Club for Growth.

The club, which supports anti-tax conservatives, helped Bill Sali win the Republican nomination in Idaho, Doug Lamborn win in Colorado and Tim Walberg topple incumbent Rep. Joe Schwarz (R) in Michigan - each in a district that should not be competitive in a normal general election. But 2006 isn’t a normal year, and while all three GOP nominees could well win in November, the contests aren’t slam dunks.

Sali, who seems to take pride in not being a team player, may well lose some Republican votes to attorney Larry Grant (D). Colorado conservative Lamborn hasn’t been endorsed by outgoing Rep. Joel Hefley (R), who believes that the Republican nominee ran such an unseemly primary campaign that he isn’t backing Lamborn over Democrat Jay Fawcett. And in Michigan, Walberg angered some Republicans when he ran against a sitting Congressman, though he certainly should be able to beat Sharon Renier, a fourth-tier Democrat who had raised less than $40,000 through Oct. 18.

Elsewhere, at least a couple of other Republicans who also should be headed for certain victory are suffering from self-inflicted wounds or serious political baggage.

In Florida’s 13th district, Vern Buchanan, who made some enemies as a businessman and during the GOP Congressional primary, has yet to unify his party. And in Wyoming, the state’s at-large Representative, Barbara Cubin, has done what she can to turn a laugher into a serious contest.

The "bigger candidate" problem for Republicans is that this cycle, candidate quality doesn’t mean what it did in the past.

By traditional measures, Republicans have a long list of well-qualified, well-prepared Congressional candidates, many of them incumbents. Unfortunately for them, many voters don’t seem to care much about credentials this year. They just want to send a message, and they don’t care about the messenger as long as he or she has a (D) behind his or her name.

In 2002 and 2004, voters were concerned about terrorism and homeland security, and they seemed inclined to prefer political hopefuls with experience and proven accomplishments. Why take a chance on an amateur who had to make important decisions about the economy and the nation’s security?

This year, many of the Democrats making a serious run at Republican incumbents and open seats never have held elective office and have no experience in a legislative body. By many measures, they are relatively weak.

Perhaps the starkest contrast in credentials can be seen in three GOP open seats in the Midwest — in Minnesota’s 6th, Illinois’ 6th and Wisconsin’s 8th, where the three GOP nominees, Michele Bachmann, Peter Roskam and John Gard, are state legislators, while the Democrats in the three contests, Patty Wetterling, Tammy Duckworth and Steve Kagen, never have held elective office.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In California’s 4th, Charlie Brown (D) is a 26-year veteran of the Air Force who served on the professional staff of the Roseville Police Department. His "elective" experience, according to his Web site, is limited to service chairing the "Supervisory Committee" of a credit union.

In California’s 11th district, Democrat Jerry McNerney has been an engineer and energy consultant and is now CEO of a start-up company that manufactures wind turbines. In Washington’s 8th district, Democratic nominee Darcy Burner was a former manager at Microsoft.

Heath Shuler (D) in North Carolina’s 11th is a former football player and a real estate agent. Democrat Joe Donnelly, in Indiana’s 2nd district, is an attorney and businessman who lost bids for the state Senate and for Congress; he never has held elective office. The same goes for businessman Jack Davis, the Democrat who’s taking on GOP Rep. Tom Reynolds in New York’s 26th district.

And I’m not done yet. Democrats Ellen Simon (Arizona’s 1st), Charlie Stuart (Florida’s 8th), Christine Jennings (Florida’s 13th), Tim Walz (Minnesota’s 1st), Victoria Wulsin (Ohio’s 2nd), Lois Murphy (Pennsylvania’s 6th), Joe Sestak (Pennsylvania’s 7th), Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania’s 8th) and Chris Carney (Pennsylvania’s 10th) also never have held elective office. There are others, but you get the drift.

I’m certainly not suggesting that all of these Democrats lack qualifications to be in Congress. Many current Members held no previous elective office, and a background in politics or government doesn’t guarantee success in Congress. Obviously, businessmen, lawyers and community activists can be - and have been - successful in legislative bodies.

But it is remarkable how similar this group of Democratic candidates is to the GOP class of 1994, when, by my count, 37 freshmen were elected without having held a previous elective office.

Some of those Republicans, including now-Sens. John Ensign (Nev.) and Richard Burr (N.C.), Rep. Sue Kelly (N.Y.) and former Rep. George Nethercutt (Wash.), developed into respected, successful legislators. But others, including former Reps. Wes Cooley (Ore.), Enid Greene Waldholtz (Utah) and Steve Stockman (Texas), were disasters.

Every cycle is different. Often, voters are looking for candidates with legislative experience and who are Washington, D.C., savvy. This year, those assets appear to be liabilities. And that’s another reason why Republicans are finding the going tougher than expected in House races.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 26, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: National Outlook & Ratings

The new October 27, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The new ratings are available online, but for the full explanation and analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition.

House Ratings
Senate Ratings
Gubernatorial Ratings

2006 House Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here.

Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 18-28 seats, with the caveat that larger gains surely are possible. (Democrats need to net 15 seats for a majority.)

PURE TOSS-UP (17 R, 0 D)

• CT 2 (Simmons, R)
• CT 4 (Shays, R)
• CT 5 (Johnson, R)
• FL 16 (Open; Foley, R)
• FL 22 (Shaw, R)
• IL 6 (Open; Hyde, R)
• MN 6 (Open; Kennedy, R)
• NM 1 (Wilson, R)
• NC 11 (Taylor, R)
• NY 26 (Reynolds, R)
• OH 1 (Chabot, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
• PA 8 (Fitzpatrick, R)
• VA 2 (Drake, R)
• TX 22 (Open; DeLay, R)
• WI 8 (Open; Green, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (6 R, 0 D)

• CA 4 (Doolittle, R)
• CA 11 (Pombo, R)
• KY 4 (Davis, R)
• NH 2 (Bass, R)
• NV 3 (Porter, R)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 4 D)

• FL 13 (Open; Harris, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• GA 12 (Barrow, D)
• IL 8 (Bean, D)
• IN 9 (Sodrel, R)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• NY 24 (Open; Boehlert, R)

LEAN REPUBLICAN (10 R, 0 D)

• AZ 1 (Renzi, R)
• AZ 5 (Hayworth, R)
• CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
• ID 1 (Open; Otter, R)
• KY 3 (Northup, R)
• MN 1 (Gutknecht, R)
• NY 20 (Sweeney, R)
• NY 25 (Walsh, R)
• NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
• TX 23 (Bonilla, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (6 R, 0 D)

• IA 1 (Open; Nussle, R)
• IN 2 (Chocola, R)
• OH 15 (Pryce, R)
• OH 18 (Open; Ney, R)
• PA 7 (Weldon, R)
• PA 10 (Sherwood, R)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (11 R, 0 D)

• CA 50 (Bilbray, R)
• CO 5 (Open; Hefley, R)
• KS 2 (Ryun, R)
• KY 2 (Lewis, R)
• NV 2 (Open; Gibbons, R)
• NJ 7 (Ferguson, R)
• NY 3 (King, R)
• NY 19 (Kelly, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
• PA 4 (Hart, R)
• WY AL (Cubin, R)

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (3 R, 1 D)

• AZ 8 (Open; Kolbe, R)
• CO 7 (Open; Beauprez, R)
• IN 8 (Hostettler, R)
• VT A-L (Open; Sanders, D)

2006 Senate Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here.

Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 4-7 seats. (Democrats need to net six for a majority.)

LIKELY TAKEOVER (2 R, 0 D)

• DeWine (R-OH)
• Santorum (R-PA)

LEAN TAKEOVER (3 R, 0 D)

• Burns, (R-MT)
• Chafee, (R-RI)
• Talent (R-MO)

TOSS-UP (2 R, 1 D)

• Allen (R-VA)
• TN Open (Frist, R)
• Menendez (D-NJ)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (0 R, 1 D)

• MD Open (D-Sarbanes)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 3 D)

• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Nelson (D-NE)

CURRENTLY SAFE (7 R, 13 D)

• Ensign (R-NV)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Lott (R-MS)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Thomas (R-WY)
• Akaka (D-HI)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Byrd (D-WV)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Clinton (D-NY)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Kennedy (D-MA)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Lieberman (D-CT)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• MN Open (D-Dayton)
• VT Open (I-Jeffords)

2006 Gubernatorial Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Republicans currently hold a 28-22 advantage in governorships nationwide.

Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 6-10 governorships.

LIKELY TAKEOVER (4 R, 0 D)

• CO Open (R-Owens)
• MA Open (R-Romney)
• NY Open (R-Pataki)
• OH Open (R-Taft)

LEAN TAKEOVER (1 R, 0 D)

• AR Open (R-Huckabee)

TOSS-UP (3 R, 2 D)

• Carcieri (R-RI)
• Ehrlich (R-MD)
• Pawlenty (R-MN)
• Doyle (D-WI)
• IA Open (D-Vilsack)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (2 R, 2 D)

• Baldacci (D-ME)
• ID Open (R-Risch)
• NV Open (R-Guinn)
• Kulongoski (D-OR)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (3 R, 2 D)

• Blagojevich (D-IL)
• Granholm (D-MI)
• Perdue (R-GA)
• AK Open (R-Murkowski)
• FL Open (R-Bush)

CURRENTLY SAFE (9 R, 8 D)

• Douglas (R-VT)
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Lingle (R-HI)
• Perry (R-TX)
• Rell (R-CT)
• Riley (R-AL)
• Rounds (R-SD)
• Sanford (R-SC)
• Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
• Bredesen (D-TN)
• Freudenthal (D-WY)
• Henry (D-OK)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• Napolitano (D-AZ)
• Rendell (D-PA)
• Richardson (D-NM)
• Sebelius (D-KS)

How High the Wave? Don’t Just Think 1994; Think 1974, 1958, 1982

By Stuart Rothenberg

With only a couple of weeks until Election Day, we know there will be a Democratic wave on Nov. 7. And we can be fairly certain that by historical standards it will be high - possibly very high. But we still don’t know how many Republicans once considered safe will be swept out of office.

The national political environment currently is worse than it was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats and 10 governorships, and when Republicans won GOP control of the House for the first time in decades.

You heard me right: It’s worse this year than it was in 1994, when voters were dissatisfied with the first two years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

President Bush’s approval ratings are worse than Clinton’s were - Bush’s are in the upper 30s, while Clinton’s were in the mid-to-upper 40s - and the 16 percent approval rating for Congress in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll ranks far below where Congress stood prior to the 1994 midterms (24 percent).

Similarly, the generic ballot in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was much closer back in ’94, when Republicans held a 5-point edge right before the elections. Now, there’s a 15-point Democratic advantage.

Moreover, the problems hounding Republican Congressional candidates - which range from a second midterm election (as compared to a less dangerous first midterm in the Clinton administration) to House scandals to an unpopular war - are far more challenging than anything Democratic Congressional candidates faced in 1994.

If you are looking for a midterm election year that is comparable to 2006, you need to move beyond 1994 to include other recent "wave" midterms, particularly 1974, 1958 and 1982. In 1974 and 1958, the president’s party, in each case the Republicans, lost 48 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26.

Each of these three elections holds a lesson for anyone trying to understand what is likely to happen in House races on Nov. 7.

The 1994 midterm was about Clinton - particularly the Clinton health care plan, gays in the military and his perceived liberalism.

In 1982, the election was about Ronald Reagan and "his recession."

In 1974, the election was about Richard Nixon and Watergate, and then-President Gerald Ford’s September pardon of the disgraced former president. To some extent, it also was about a party that too frequently seemed to defend and shield Nixon.

And the 1958 election was about a farm recession and dissatisfaction with the Eisenhower administration in a part of the country that made up a big chunk of the GOP’s base.

I don’t count 1966 as a midterm wave, although Democrats lost 47 seats in the House while holding the White House. Rather, that midterm was a rebound election, coming two years after the GOP’s disastrous 1964 presidential election.

Given that, the past four true midterm wave elections saw the victorious party winning 52, 48, 48 and 26 seats, suggesting a reasonable range for success for Democrats this year.

Given that the political environment right now is worse for Republicans than at any time since 1974 - and that Republicans hold 232 House seats, which is far, far above their level in any of the four previous cycles - their vulnerability is great.

Of course, it matters where a party starts, since an overextended party (that is, one holding lots of seats that ought to belong to the opposition) inevitably has more seats at risk, while one that holds relatively few districts has fewer to lose.

The GOP’s 48-seat loss in 1974 was stunning because the party started the election holding fewer than 200 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26 seats starting at roughly the same point.

While the GOP isn’t overextended now, its 15-seat majority suggests it is now near the upper limit of its "normal" range. It holds a few Democratic seats, and Democrats hold a few Republican seats, but most districts are represented by the "correct" party. Still, with Republicans holding 232 seats in the House, the party has plenty of districts to lose.

So where does this leave us?

With the national environment being as it is - and given the last round of redistricting, which limits possible Democratic gains - Republicans probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats, based on historical results. Given how the national mood compares to previous wave years and to the GOP’s 15-seat House majority, Democratic gains almost certainly would fall to the upper end of that range.

The paucity of competitive districts limits Republican risk, but how much? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. But if redistricting cuts that kind of wave by half, Democrats would gain between 22 and 30 seats next month. And if the new districts slice Democratic gains by a smaller but still significant one-third, Democrats would pick up from 30 to 45 seats.

Dangerously big waves can be very strong and very unpredictable. They can bring widespread destruction and chaos. Republicans now must hope that this year’s midterm wave isn’t as bad as national poll numbers suggest it could be, because those national numbers suggest a truly historic tidal wave.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 24, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Audio: Oct. 5 Roll Call Election Preview with Rothenberg & Kondracke

Now you can listen to Stuart Rothenberg and Morton Kondracke's Oct. 5 preview of the elections, courtesy of Roll Call newspaper.

Linking Iraq to the War on Terror Has Downside for GOP

By Stuart Rothenberg

President Bush and his allies have spent months trying to drum up support for the administration’s Iraq policies by arguing that the Iraq War isn’t merely an isolated battle but rather the front line in a much larger war against terrorism.

Of course, that’s not a new strategy. They did the same thing leading up to the 2004 presidential election, and they apparently succeeded, because exit polls showed a narrow majority of Americans saw Iraq as part of the fight against terrorism. The president won a second term because of that fight.

This year, it’s fashionable to believe the link between those two “wars” has been severed in the public’s mind. After all, a clear majority of Americans now tell pollsters they think the Iraq War is a mistake, even though they support the war against terror.

My view is somewhat different. I believe the president has achieved what he wanted to achieve all along — to have Americans see Iraq as part of the larger American effort against terror — but he failed to understand that U.S. military and policy failures in Iraq could cause Americans to see the war on terror as failing as well.

Consider what we all have been witnessing in Iraq: a growing number of U.S. casualties and fatalities; increased reports of violence and anti-Americanism; ineffectiveness on the part of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government; and little or no progress toward the establishment of a stable Iraqi government that can overcome sectarian loyalties and make progress toward a sustainable democracy.

It’s no wonder Americans give the president increasingly poor grades on his handling of the war on terror. By Bush’s own standard, the front line of the war against terror — his Iraq policy — has been considerably less than successful.

“They have destroyed their great numbers on the war against terror by linking it to Iraq,” one GOP observer I talked with recently commented.

While it is true that the public gives the president somewhat higher marks for handling the war on terror than for handling the Iraq War, the gap between the two has been shrinking.

Of course, the war on terrorism includes more than the Iraq War; it involves uncovering plots, apprehending potential terrorists, stopping the flow of money to terrorist groups and more. On some of those fronts, the administration has clearly been successful, and some Americans give the president credit for those successes. But in Iraq, and increasingly in the other military theater, Afghanistan, U.S. policy certainly appears flawed.

For Republicans, the virtual elimination of the war on terror as an effective political issue is a disaster, since it has been the party’s ace in the hole.

Anyone who has watched the day-to-day arguments in races around the country has no choice but to come to the conclusion that Republican candidates have few issues at their disposal except the personal warts of their Democratic opponents.

In a number of races, including the Senate contests in Virginia and Montana, Republican incumbents apparently have adopted the worn-out strategy of longtime Republican consultant Arthur Finkelstein: Call your opponent a liberal as long and as loudly as you can, and eventually the voters will agree.

Well, this year that simply isn’t working. It’s hard to paint former Navy Secretary Jim Webb as a liberal, especially since he doesn’t have a legislative record, and Montana Democrat Jon Tester looks more like a farmer with a buzz cut (which he is) than a liberal.

And given the Bush administration’s performance in Iraq, Congress’ handling of Social Security and immigration and the number of GOP officeholders who are headed for jail or who have been totally discredited, voters don’t much care about buzzwords being thrown around by Republican strategists and candidates.

In Virginia, one television ad for Sen. George Allen (R) shows challenger Webb with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and John Kerry (Mass.). For many Republicans, those are still scary images. The only question is whether they are scarier than Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) right now.

I’m not suggesting that Republican consultants deserve most of the blame for the lack of issues to use against Democrats this cycle. Rather, the fault rests with the White House and with some Republicans on Capitol Hill, who fumbled Social Security, immigration, ethics and lobbying reform and, most importantly, the Iraq War.

But the lack of issues can’t be ignored, and it helps explain why Republicans have been unable to drive a wedge between voters and Democrats this election year.

Democrats also deserve credit for finally addressing some of the problems that they created for themselves over the past 35 years.

For at least the past two years, their leaders have not passed up the chance to reiterate their support for the war against terror, thereby going a long way toward neutralizing the GOP’s advantage on national security.

To a great extent, they repositioned themselves on national security and defense the way Republicans once did when they turned around education by emphasizing reform, rather than the GOP’s previous rhetoric of calling for the elimination of the Department of Education.

So now, Democrats have some newfound credibility on national security. Let’s see what they do with it over the next couple of years.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 19, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Print Edition: National Outlook & Ratings

The new October 20, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The new ratings are available online, but for the full explanation and analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition.

House Ratings
Senate Ratings
Gubernatorial Ratings

2006 House Ratings

2006 Rothenberg Political Report
House Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 18-25 seats, though we think that a significantly larger Democratic gain, in excess of 30 seats, is quite possible. (Democrats need to net 15 seats for a majority.)

PURE TOSS-UP (15 R, 0 D)

• CT 2 (Simmons, R)
• CT 4 (Shays, R)
• CT 5 (Johnson, R)
• FL13 (Open; Harris, R)
• FL 22 (Shaw, R)
• IL 6 (Open; Hyde, R)
• KY 4 (Davis, R)
• MN 6 (Open; Kennedy, R)
• NM 1 (Wilson, R)
• NC 11 (Taylor, R)
• NY 26 (Reynolds, R)
• OH 1 (Chabot, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
• VA 2 (Drake, R)
• WI 8 (Open; Green, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (3 R, 0 D)

• NV 3 (Porter, R)
• PA 8 (Fitzpatrick, R)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (8 R, 4 D)

• FL 16 (Open; Foley, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• GA 12 (Barrow, D)
• IL 8 (Bean, D)
• IN 9 (Sodrel, R)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• NY 24 (Open; Boehlert, R)
• OH 15 (Pryce, R)
• OH 18 (Open; Ney, R)
• PA 7 (Weldon, R)
• PA 10 (Sherwood, R)
• TX 22 (Open; DeLay, R)

LEAN REPUBLICAN (12 R, 0 D)

• AZ 5 (Hayworth, R)
• CA 4 (Doolittle, R)
• CA 11 (Pombo, R)
• CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
• ID 1 (Open; Otter, R)
• KY 3 (Northup, R)
• MN 1 (Gutknecht, R)
• NY 20 (Sweeney, R)
• NY 25 (Walsh, R)
• NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• TX 23 (Bonilla, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 0 D)

• IA 1 (Open; Nussle, R)
• IN 2 (Chocola, R)
• IN 8 (Hostettler, R)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (12 R, 0 D)

• AZ 1 (Renzi, R)
• CA 50 (Bilbray, R)
  
• CO 5 (Open; Hefley, R)
• KY 2 (Lewis, R)
  
• NV 2 (Open; Gibbons, R)
• NH 2 (Bass, R)
• NJ 7 (Ferguson, R)
• NY 3 (King, R)
• NY 19 (Kelly, R)
• OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
  
• PA 4 (Hart, R)
• WY AL (Cubin, R)

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (2 R, 1 D)

• AZ 8 (Open; Kolbe, R)
• CO 7 (Open; Beauprez, R)
• VT A-L (Open; Sanders, D)

2006 Senate Ratings

2006 Rothenberg Political Report
Senate Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 4-7 seats. (Democrats need to net six for a majority.)

LIKELY TAKEOVER (1 R, 0 D)

• Santorum (R-PA)

LEAN TAKEOVER (3 R, 0 D)

• Burns, (R-MT)
• Chafee, (R-RI)
• DeWine (R-OH)

TOSS-UP (3 R, 1 D)

• Allen (R-VA)
• Talent (R-MO)
• TN Open (Frist, R)
• Menendez (D-NJ)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (0 R, 1 D)

• MD Open (D-Sarbanes)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 4 D)

• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Nelson (D-NE)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• MN Open (D-Dayton)

CURRENTLY SAFE (7 R, 12 D)

• Ensign (R-NV)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Lott (R-MS)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Thomas (R-WY)
• Akaka (D-HI)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Byrd (D-WV)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Clinton (D-NY)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Kennedy (D-MA)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Lieberman (D-CT)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• VT Open (I-Jeffords)

2006 Gubernatorial Ratings

2006 Rothenberg Political Report
Governors Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Republicans currently hold a 28-22 advantage in governorships nationwide. Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 5-8 governorships.

LIKELY TAKEOVER (4 R, 0 D)

• CO Open (R-Owens)
• MA Open (R-Romney)
• NY Open (R-Pataki)
• OH Open (R-Taft)

LEAN TAKEOVER (2 R, 0 D)

• Ehrlich (R-MD)
• AR Open (R-Huckabee)

TOSS-UP (2 R, 2 D)

• Carcieri (R-RI)
• Pawlenty (R-MN)
• Doyle (D-WI)
• IA Open (D-Vilsack)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 2 D)

• Baldacci (D-ME)
• NV Open (R-Guinn)
• Kulongoski (D-OR)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (4 R, 2 D)

• Blagojevich (D-IL)
• Granholm (D-MI)
• Perdue (R-GA)
• Sanford (R-SC)
• AK Open (R-Murkowski)
• FL Open (R-Bush)

CURRENTLY SAFE (9 R, 8 D)

• Douglas (R-VT)
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Lingle (R-HI)
• Perry (R-TX)
• Rell (R-CT)
• Riley (R-AL)
• Rounds (R-SD)
• Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
• ID Open (R-Risch)
• Bredesen (D-TN)
• Freudenthal (D-WY)
• Henry (D-OK)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• Napolitano (D-AZ)
• Rendell (D-PA)
• Richardson (D-NM)
• Sebelius (D-KS)

Handicapping Long Shots and Late Shots

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you make your living as a political analyst and handicapper (and the odds are very good that you don’t), you’re facing an interesting dilemma right about now. Do you add every possible House upset race that you can think of to your list of competitive races, or do you keep your list as small as possible, listing only those races that you truly believe might flip in November?

If you add longer-shot races to your list, you minimize the chance that you “miss” a race that changes party control. That’s good, since it’s always better to look brilliant than appear even a little clueless. But if you do that, you also give credence to long-shot candidates who probably won’t flip a seat. And worse, you flirt with intellectual dishonesty.

In the past, I invariably added races about which I was skeptical, preferring to have too many races on my list rather than not enough.

This year, with a Democratic wave brewing, the handicapping problem is particularly acute. Given that waves are inherently unpredictable and likely to sweep in at least one or two candidates who should have no chance of winning — look no further than Republican Steve Stockman, who toppled House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) in 1994 — I’m tempted to add anyone who could possibly ride a wave to victory. It’s the easy way out, and I’ve always taken that route in the past.

But I’ve decided that I won’t do it this year — at least not yet. I won’t add Reps. Scott Garrett (R) in New Jersey’s 5th district, Mark Souder (R) in Indiana’s 3rd, Jim Ryun (R) in Kansas’ 2nd, Cathy McMorris (R) in Washington’s 5th or other potentially threatened Republicans just because their Democratic opponents have an allegedly encouraging poll or are up with TV ads. While I can’t completely rule out the possibility that some or all of them could drown in a Democratic tsunami, I believe the chances are so small that I can’t bring myself to put them on a list of endangered incumbents. As I said, at least not yet.

Take Garrett. His opponent, Paul Aronsohn, distributed a polling memo, based on an initial March survey and a late-September poll, that alleged his race against Garrett was “tightening up” and that a Democratic victory was “very possible.”

But New Jersey’s 5th district, represented by Garrett, is a Republican-leaning district that gave President Bush 57 percent of the vote in 2004. In 2002, Garrett drew almost 60 percent in an open-seat victory against a credible Democrat who outspent him, and two years later he won re-election with almost 59 percent.

Aronsohn’s own polling shows the Republican generic vote advantage has been cut in half, but it still stands at 7 points — a significant edge. Then there is the trial heat, which shows Garrett’s 25-point advantage in March having closed to 16 points in late September. But those surveys also show that Garrett’s share of the ballot test has remained unchanged at 49 percent of the vote.

Even though the Republican "generic" number has slipped, and even though the "wrong track" number and President Bush’s job approval rating have eroded, Garrett’s trial heat number has remained the same, just a whisker under the 50 percent mark.

Sure, the ballot test in the poll has tightened, but only because some of the undecided voters went over to Aronsohn, whose share of the vote went from an anemic 24 percent in March to an only somewhat less anemic 33 percent at the end of September.

I can’t say with absolute certainty that Aronsohn can’t, or won’t, beat Garrett next month, only that the chances seem so small that rating the race as competitive seems misleading. If, barring other evidence of an Aronsohn surge before Election Day, the Democrat does win, it will be a jaw-dropping upset, and I won’t mind missing it.

The situation is a bit different, but only a bit, in Colorado’s 5th district, where a media poll shows a dead heat between Democrat Jay Fawcett and Republican Doug Lamborn for the open seat of retiring GOP Rep. Joel Hefley.

This is a solid Republican district in which Bush drew 66 percent in 2004 and 63 percent in 2000. Recent party registration figures show an advantage for the GOP of 100,000 registered voters — 189,942 Republicans (46 percent), 89,182 Democrats (22 percent) and 132,606 independents (32 percent).

Like New Jersey’s 5th district, one public poll alleges that the race is competitive, but here it’s an independent Mason-Dixon survey. Moreover, Republicans had a bitter primary and have not united since. All of those circumstances argue for including the race on a list of competitive contests, at least for the moment.

But if you are a Democratic partisan looking for a way for Democrats to net 40 or 50 seats, don’t kid yourself. The fundamentals of Colorado’s 5th are so terrible for Democrats that it’s hard to believe Fawcett will win. Lamborn certainly created enemies within his own party, but he can afford to lose a bunch of them, given his edge in party registration.

For Democrats, the more interesting long shots may include Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.), whose 4th district gave Bush 54 percent of the vote in 2004 and 52 percent four years earlier. Or Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R), who represents a competitive district in southeastern Minnesota. A true national wave could hit hard in districts like those, creating opportunities that Democrats ought not have in a normal year. That’s why both of these races now are on my list of Democratic challenges to watch.

I expect a major surprise or two on election night, with an unheralded Democrat or two pulling off an upset, possibly in a rock-ribbed Republican district. I’ll try not to miss that race, but I won’t be embarrassed if I do.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 17, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Ohio Senate: RNC Launching New Statewide Buy

By Stuart Rothenberg

Contrary to published reports that the Republican National Committee has decided to "write off" the Ohio Senate race, the RNC is about to begin a new, statewide TV buy in Ohio on behalf of the candidacy of Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH).

The buy, which costs in excess of $1 million, is scheduled to last for two weeks.

Polling continues to show the Ohio contest between DeWine and his Democratic challenger, Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), to be close, though most state and national political observers believe that Brown has the advantage.

The Ohio political environment remains toxic for Republicans, and the party’s gubernatorial nominee, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, is likely to get trounced in November by Democrat Ted Strickland. The party’s prospects in a number of Buckeye State House races have also faded.

The GOP’s best chances for holding onto a Senate majority probably rest with Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, Virginia Sen. George Allen and Republican open seat hopeful Bob Corker in Tennessee. But the RNC is continuing to spend resources in Ohio.

This item first appeared on Political Wire on October 16, 2006.

The Fight for Congress: I’ve Seen This Movie Before

By Stuart Rothenberg

Three weeks ago, some people were talking about a Republican surge that never really existed. Now, others mistakenly are talking as if the page scandal surrounding ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) hasfundamentally changed the election cycle. It hasn’t. What we are seeing, increasingly, is 1994, with the parties reversed.

The midterm elections overwhelmingly remain a referendum on President Bush and the Republican Congress. The Foley scandal makes it more difficult for GOP candidates across the country to cut through the media coverage of the controversy and to localize their races and discredit their Democratic opponents. But the Republicans were in a hole even before the most recent flap.

Clearly, the scandal has allowed Democrats to return to the party’s “culture of corruption” argument that it largely dropped during the summer. That feeds into the Democrats’ larger “change” argument, an argument that apparently resonates with voters who disapprove of the job the president and Congress are doing, and who think that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Democrats now deserve to be solid favorites to win control of the House of Representatives. They already have six to nine GOP seats in the bag, with another two dozen serious opportunities.

The fallout from the Foley scandal does increase the possible size of an already substantial Democratic wave. That means that low second- and third-tier Democratic challengers must now be taken more seriously, and it increases the chances that entrenched Republicans in marginal districts — even those without particularly credible Democratic opponents — could find themselves in jeopardy on Nov. 7.

The problem for Republican Members of Congress is that the election cycle isn’t about them as individuals, or their opponents. It’s a referendum on the president and the direction of the country. True, the GOP still has more than three weeks to “localize” individual House and Senate races, but the burden remains on Republican candidates to change the focus of the midterms.

The major impact of the Foley scandal potentially is to further depress Republican turnout. If turnout is down, it also will increase Democrats’ chances of winning the Senate. Republican prospects in both Virginia and Tennessee have eroded, and while Democrats Jim Webb (Va.) and Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.) still have plenty of work to do to win their Senate contests, both races clearly have become competitive.

Personally, I’m skeptical about all of the talk about evangelical voters deserting the GOP in droves, and I thought David Kirkpatrick hit the nail on the head in Monday’s New York Times.

For most evangelicals, politics is about where the two parties stand on cultural issues, not whether House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) goes to church, whether Foley has a serious personal problem or whether the Republican Congressional leadership mishandled the page scandal issue. Still, overall turnout is a big GOP problem because of the president’s and Congress’ standing, and that includes evangelical Republicans.

No matter what the final results, Republicans will suffer serious losses next month. Losing just a dozen House seats would be a resounding victory for the GOP, since losses in excess of 20 seats are possible. In the Senate, most Republicans would be content if the party loses only four or five seats, thereby keeping control.

If Republicans lose even one chamber of Congress, I expect allies of the president to cite Congressional GOP scandals and paint the results as a rejection of Capitol Hill Republicans, not of President Bush. If that’s ultimately the White House line, I hope nobody swallows it.

Clearly, the elections so far have been, and continue to be, about Bush and the administration’s performance, not about the GOP Congressional leadership. And if Republicans get spanked by voters, it won’t be the fault of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is once again doing everything it can, given the cards that it holds.

But with Bush still having two years left to govern, the White House is going to have to try to pass the buck, and the blame, to Foley, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and anyone else it can think of. And that won’t be the extent of the GOP infighting. You can bet that conservatives will complain that moderate voters proved unreliable, just as you can expect moderates to complain that conservatives were intolerant and too ideological.

The 2006 elections increasingly resemble those of 1994, when Republicans ran as the party of change against then-President Bill Clinton. This cycle, Democrats are running to check Bush much as Republicans ran against Clinton a dozen years ago. Unpopular presidents tend to produce difficult, often disastrous, midterms for the party in power. That’s what is happening to the GOP this year, pure and simple.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 12, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Kansas 2: Dueling Polls, Differing Perspectives

Two recent Democratic polls show Cong. Jim Ryun (R) in a surprisingly tight contest in the 2nd District of Kansas. But Republicans are countering with numbers of their own.

2004 nominee Nancy Boyda (D) is taking on the congressman, hoping to avenge her 56%-41% loss to Ryun last cycle. An October 2-6 survey by Infomark Research for Boyda showed her trailing by a narrow 43%-40%. And an October 6-8 Cooper & Secrest poll for the state Democratic Party had Ryun's margin at 45%-41%.

In contrast, an October 3 Wilson Research Strategies survey for Ryun, showed the congressman leading by a significant 50%-33%, and a third party candidate pulling almost 5%.

In a district President Bush carried by twenty points over Senator John Kerry (59%-39%) in 2004, hovering at 50% isn't great news for the incumbent. But Boyda still has a significant task ahead of her to stretch her showing last cycle to 50%+1 in the conservative district.

Based on numbers going into the final three weeks of the campaign, it looks like Ryun is ahead by about nine points.

New Print Edition: New House, Senate, & Gubernatorial Ratings

The new October 13, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. The new ratings are available online, but for the full explanation and analysis, you must subscribe to the print edition.

House Ratings
Senate Ratings
Gubernatorial Ratings

2006 Senate Ratings

2006 Rothenberg Political Report
Senate Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 4-7 seats. (Democrats need to net six for a majority.)

LIKELY TAKEOVER (1 R, 0 D)

• Santorum (R-PA)

LEAN TAKEOVER (2 R, 0 D)

• Burns, (R-MT)
• Chafee, (R-RI)

TOSS-UP (4 R, 1 D)

• Allen (R-VA)
• DeWine (R-OH)
• Talent (R-MO)
• TN Open (Frist, R)
• Menendez (D-NJ)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (0 R, 1 D)

• MD Open (D-Sarbanes)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 4 D)

• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Nelson (D-NE)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• MN Open (D-Dayton)

CURRENTLY SAFE (7 R, 12 D)

• Ensign (R-NV)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Lott (R-MS)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Thomas (R-WY)
• Akaka (D-HI)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Byrd (D-WV)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Clinton (D-NY)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Kennedy (D-MA)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Lieberman (D-CT)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• VT Open (I-Jeffords)

2006 Gubernatorial Ratings

2006 Rothenberg Political Report
Governors Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Republicans currently hold a 28-22 advantage in governorships nationwide. Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gains of 5-8 governorships.

LIKELY TAKEOVER (3 R, 0 D)

• MA Open (R-Romney)
• NY Open (R-Pataki)
• OH Open (R-Taft)

LEAN TAKEOVER (3 R, 0 D)

• Ehrlich (R-MD)
• AR Open (R-Huckabee)
• CO Open (R-Owens)

TOSS-UP (2 R, 2 D)

• Carcieri (R-RI)
• Pawlenty (R-MN)
• Doyle (D-WI)
• IA Open (D-Vilsack)

NARROW ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (1 R, 3 D)

• Baldacci (D-ME)
• Granholm (D-MI)
• NV Open (R-Guinn)
• Kulongoski (D-OR)

CLEAR ADVANTAGE INCUMBENT PARTY (4 R, 1 D)

• Blagojevich (D-IL)
• Perdue (R-GA)
• Sanford (R-SC)
• AK Open (R-Murkowski)
• FL Open (R-Bush)

CURRENTLY SAFE (9 R, 8 D)

• Douglas (R-VT)
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Lingle (R-HI)
• Perry (R-TX)
• Rell (R-CT)
• Riley (R-AL)
• Rounds (R-SD)
• Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
• ID Open (R-Risch)
• Bredesen (D-TN)
• Freudenthal (D-WY)
• Henry (D-OK)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• Napolitano (D-AZ)
• Rendell (D-PA)
• Richardson (D-NM)
• Sebelius (D-KS)

2006 House Ratings

2006 Rothenberg Political Report
House Ratings

For race-by-race analysis and explanation of the ratings, you must be a subscriber to the print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report. For a subscription form, click here. Current Rothenberg Political Report projection: Democratic gain of 18-25 seats. (Democrats need to net 15 seats for a majority.)

PURE TOSS-UP (14 R, 0 D)

• CT 2 (Simmons, R)
• FL13 (Open; Harris, R)
• FL 22 (Shaw, R)
• IL 6 (Open; Hyde, R)
• KY 4 (Davis, R)
  
• NM 1 (Wilson, R)
• NC 11 (Taylor, R)
• NY 24 (Open; Boehlert, R)
• NY 26 (Reynolds, R)
• OH 1 (Chabot, R)
• OH 15 (Pryce, R)
• PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
• PA 7 (Weldon, R)
• VA 2 (Drake, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (7 R, 0 D)

• CT 4 (Shays, R)
• CT 5 (Johnson, R)
• MN 6 (Open; Kennedy, R)
• NV 3 (Porter, R)
• PA 8 (Fitzpatrick, R)
• WA 8 (Reichert, R)
• WI 8 (Open; Green, R)

TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (6 R, 3 D)

• FL 16 (Open; Foley, R)
• GA 8 (Marshall, D)
• GA 12 (Barrow, D)
• IN 9 (Sodrel, R)
• IA 1 (Open; Nussle, R)
• IA 3 (Boswell, D)
• OH 18 (Open; Ney, R)
• PA 10 (Sherwood, R)
• TX 22 (Open; DeLay, R)

LEAN REPUBLICAN (8 R, 0 D)

• AZ 5 (Hayworth, R)
• CA 4 (Doolittle, R)
• CA 11 (Pombo, R)
• CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
• KY 3 (Northup, R)
• NY 20 (Sweeney, R)
• NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
• TX 23 (Bonilla, R)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC (3 R, 1 D)

• CO 7 (Open; Beauprez, R)
• IL 8 (Bean, D)
• IN 2 (Chocola, R)
• IN 8 (Hostettler, R)

REPUBLICAN FAVORED (13 R, 0 D)

• AZ 1 (Renzi, R)
• CO 5 (Open; Hefley, R)
• ID 1 (Open; Otter, R)
• MN 1 (Gutknecht, R)
• NV 2 (Open; Gibbons, R)
• NH 2 (Bass, R)
• NJ 7 (Ferguson, R)
• NY 3 (King, R)
• NY 19 (Kelly, R)
• NY 25 (Walsh, R)
• OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
• PA 4 (Hart, R)
• WY AL (Cubin, R)

DEMOCRAT FAVORED (1 R, 1 D)

• AZ 8 (Open; Kolbe, R)
• VT A-L (Open; Sanders, D)

Rothenberg’s Dangerous Dozen Open House Seats

By Stuart Rothenberg

The newest GOP open seat, in Florida, is a perfect example of Republicans’ problems this year. Instead of a safe incumbent running for re-election, the GOP is stuck with a seat vacated by a discredited former Congressman. Democrats now looked poised to pick off at least five open seats, taking them one-third of the way to the 15-seat gain they need to reach a majority.

The first five races on this list look like excellent opportunities for Democrats. The next six range from tossups to races that are slightly uphill for the Democrats. The final one is a long shot, but in this national environment, it can’t be ignored. All 12 of the races currently are held by Republicans, which tells you a lot about the nature of this cycle.

Arizona’s 8th. National Republican strategists did what they could to try to prevent former state Rep. Randy Graf from winning the GOP nomination. When he won the primary, they threw in the towel on the race, believing that he simply is too strident on immigration and too conservative in general to win the seat. Former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) is now a solid favorite to succeed retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe, a moderate Republican.

Colorado’s 7th. Republican Bob Beauprez’s open seat also looks headed to the Democratic column. The registration in the district is virtually even between the parties, but the national mood gives the edge to state Sen. Ed Perlmutter (D) over Rick O’Donnell (R), the executive director of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.

Florida’s 16th. The seat vacated by discredited former Rep. Mark Foley (R) is a gift to Democrats. Democrat Tim Mahoney can take advantage of voters’ desire for change without having to tear down a (once-)popular incumbent. Mahoney has enough money to make his case, and Foley’s name remains on the ballot even though state Rep. Joe Negron will receive any votes cast for Foley.

Texas’ 22nd. The seat vacated by former Rep. Tom DeLay (R) is a mess for Republicans. The consensus GOP candidate, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, benefits from a huge Republican registration advantage in the district. But that may not be enough to overcome the fact that while her name appears on the special-election ballot — to fill the remainder of DeLay’s term — she’s only a write-in candidate in the general election that will choose the district’s representative for the next two years. The logistical problems of electing a write-in candidate are considerable and make this district a very real Democratic takeover opportunity for former Rep. Nick Lampson.

Iowa’s 1st. Republican Jim Nussle’s open seat definitely is competitive, and attorney Bruce Braley (D) and businessman-restaurateur Mike Whalen (R) are in a competitive fight. But the national Democratic drift is likely to push this seat toward the Democrat.

Ohio’s 18th. Though I haven’t met Democrat Zack Space, I hear he isn’t one of his party’s better recruits. Still, Republican Joy Padgett was just nominated to replace discredited Rep. Bob Ney (R), and Democrats should be able to tie her to both Ney and embattled outgoing Gov. Bob Taft (R). The seat strongly favors a Republican, but Ney really botched this one.

Illinois’ 6th. Democrats continue to be effusive about Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth, who has a compelling personal story. But state Sen. Peter Roskam (R) also is a strong candidate. The district leans Republican — President Bush carried it 53 percent to 46 percent for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 — so Duckworth still needs a surge against a very able opponent. It’s certainly possible that the Democrat could win, but it won’t be easy.

New York’s 24th. The retirement of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert puts this Republican seat at risk. State Sen. Ray Meier (R) and Michael Arcuri (D), the Oneida County district attorney, both are appealing candidates. The district favors the GOP, but that may not be enough to save the seat for Republicans this year.

Minnesota’s 6th. While Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) runs for the Senate, his party’s nominee for his old seat is state Sen. Michele Bachmann. Democrat Patty Wetterling has name recognition from her race in the previous cycle, and she also has no legislative record to defend. Now, the Congressional page scandal plays into her strength. But Bachmann, an ardent social conservative in a district won by Bush with 56 percent of the vote in 2004, is personable and articulate. Bachmann began the general election trailing by a few points, but this race is still very close.

Florida’s 13th. Rep. Katherine Harris’ open seat is solidly Republican, but a nasty GOP primary and a nominee with some personal baggage gives Democrat Christine Jennings a good scenario for a major upset. Republican Vern Buchanan is a wealthy auto dealer, but banker Jennings has ammunition, such as his earlier business dealings in Michigan, to use against him.

Wisconsin’s 8th. State Rep. John Gard (R) is in a tight race with free-spending allergist Steve Kagen (D). Bush won the district with 57 percent two years ago, so Gard should have the edge. But Democrats certainly believe that this is a district that they can swipe in a “national wave.”

Nevada’s 2nd. Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller won the GOP nomination only narrowly, and he is a solid favorite to hold onto this Republican open seat. But Democrat Jill Derby is a credible candidate who can’t be ignored.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 10, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2006 Ballot Measures: A National Scorecard

By Louis Jacobson

By the numbers, 2006 will have more initiatives on the ballot than any year except for 1996 and 1914. Here is a rundown of what voters will be puzzling over in the voting booth on Election Day.

SOCIAL ISSUES

Once again, some of the hottest issues on the ballot this year address social issues. The headliner is the pro-choice measure that would repeal the South Dakota legislature's shot across the bow of Roe v. Wade. But pro-life groups are playing offense in both California and Oregon with parental notification initiatives. Other divisive social issues on the ballot this fall include stem cell research, affirmative action and the death penalty. And same-sex marriage bans have returned; while most will pass handily, supporters of same-sex marriage hold out hope they can block Wisconsin's measure while also passing a domestic-partnerships measure in Colorado. One surprise this year: smoking bans. Voters in at least two and possibly three states will choose between two competing no-smoking measures, one backed by health advocates and the other backed by industry.

Abortion

• California Prop 85. Requires waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Field Poll, August--44% yes, 45% no.
• Oregon Measure 43. Requires waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Davis-Hibbitts-Midghall for Oregonian/KATU, Sep.--54% yes, 35% no.
• South Dakota Referred Law 6. Repeals the state's ban on virtually all abortions. Sioux Falls Argus-Leader/KELO, July--47% yes, 39% no.
  

Stem cell research

• Missouri Amendment 2. Allows embryonic stem cell research. Research 2000 for St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV, August-- 58% yes, 37% no.

Affirmative action

• Michigan Proposal 2. Bars state universities from discriminating on basis of race. EPIC/MRA for Detroit News/WXYZ, Sep.--48% yes, 37%no. Detroit Free Press, August--41% yes, 43%no.

Same-sex marriage

• Arizona Prop 107. Bans same-sex marriage.
• Colorado Amendment 43. Bans same-sex marriage. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--58% yes.
• Colorado Referendum I. Establishes "domestic partnerships" similar to marriage. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--52% yes.
• Idaho HJR 2. Bans same-sex marriage.
• South Carolina Amendment 1. Bans same-sex marriage.
• South Dakota Amendment C. Bans same-sex marriage.
• Tennessee Amendment 1. Bans same-sex marriage. Chattanooga Times-Free Press/Memphis Commercial Appeal, Sept.--73% yes, 20% no.
• Virginia Question 1. Bans same-sex marriage.
• Wisconsin Question 1. Bans same-sex marriage. Diversified Research for wispolitics.com, Sept.--53% yes, 39% no.
  

Smoking restrictions

• Arizona Prop 201. Prohibits smoking in public places, backed by health advocates. Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--57% yes, 33% no.
• Arizona Prop 206. Prohibits smoking in public places except bars, backed by industry. Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--55% yes, 34% no.
• Nevada Question 5. Bans smoking in public places with children, backed by health advocates. Mason-Dixon for Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept.--62% yes, 34% no.
• Nevada Question 4. Bans smoking in public places except bars and restaurants, backed by industry. Mason-Dixon for Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept.--77% yes, 17% no.
• Ohio Issue 5. Bans smoking in public places, backed by health advocates.
• ** Ohio Issue 4. Bans smoking in public spaces except restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and other locations. Backed by industry. It would supersede local anti-smoking ordinances. (**Whether this measure actually gets voted on is currently being decided by the courts.)

Death penalty

• Wisconsin Question 2. Advisory question on bringing back the death penalty. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Sept.--54% yes, 37% no.

Animal welfare and hunting

• Arizona Prop 204. Mandates minimum living space for pregnant pigs and calves. Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--65% yes, 16% no.
• Georgia Amendment 2. Requires state to preserve the "tradition of fishing and hunting."
• Michigan Proposal 3. Would affirm a law allowing hunting of mourning doves. Detroit Free Press, Aug.--40% yes, 50% no.
  

Gambling

• Arkansas Amendment 1. Allows charities to run bingo games and raffles.
• Nebraska Measure 421. Permits video keno machines.
• Nebraska Amendment 3. Allocates $1 million for compulsive gamblers.
• Ohio Issue 3. Allows slot machines, dedicating the revenue for college scholarships.
• Rhode Island Question 1. Authorizes a privately run resort casino.
• South Dakota Measure 7. Repeals video lottery.
  

Drug legalization

• Colorado Amendment 44. Legalizes possession of one ounce of marijuana. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--42% yes, 53% no.
• Nevada Question 7. Legalizes possession of one ounce of marijuana. Mason-Dixon for Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept.--42% yes, 51% no.
• South Dakota Measure 4. Allows medical use of marijuana.
  

HUMAN RESOURCES

Liberals see minimum-wage hikes as their answer to same-sex marriage bans as an energizer of the base. Most if not all should pass easily, but questions remain about how much of a boost these measures will provide liberal candidates elsewhere on the ballot. In the meantime, considering the national outcry about immigration, surprisingly few immigration-related measures will be on the ballot this fall, and what there is tends to be fairly narrow-bore.

Minimum wage

• Arizona Prop 202. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation.
• Colorado Amendment 42. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation.
• Missouri Prop B. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation. Research 2000 for St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV, Aug.--68% yes.
• Montana I-151. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation. Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--73% yes, 16% no.
• Nevada Question 6. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation. Already approved once; goes into effect after second voter approval in 2006. Mason-Dixon for Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept.--72% yes, 20% no.
• Ohio Issue 2. Raises minimum wage; indexes it to inflation.
  

Immigration

• Arizona Prop 100. Denies bail to illegal immigrants.
• Arizona Prop 102. Bars illegal immigrants from winning punitive damages.
• Arizona Prop 103. Makes English the official state language.
• Arizona Prop 300. Bars illegal aliens from receiving state subsidies for education and child care.
• Colorado Referendum H. Bars businesses from deducting wages paid to illegal aliens.
• Colorado Referendum K. Directs attorney general to sue federal government to enforce immigration laws.
  

TAXES AND SPENDING

Voters in at least three states will weigh tight spending restrictions for legislators, but that's far fewer states considering such measures than anti-taxers had wanted going into 2006. (A number of similar measures were thrown off the ballot by judges.) In the meantime, voters in several states will weigh tax hikes on tobacco products. And a wide range of tax breaks and spending proposals will be on the ballot, the most interesting of which may be the bid to end the estate tax in Washington state.

TABOR restrictions

• Maine Question 1. Imposes Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) spending restrictions.
• **Montana CI-97. Imposes TABOR spending restrictions. Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--43% no, 34% yes. (**Whether this measure actually gets voted on is currently being decided by the courts.)
• Nebraska Measure 423. Imposes TABOR spending restrictions.
• Oregon Measure 48. Imposes TABOR spending restrictions. Davis-Hibbitts-Midghall for Oregonian/KATU, Sep.--32% yes, 42% no.
  

Tobacco taxes and settlement funds

• Arizona Prop 203. Raises tobacco tax to fund early childhood development. Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--62% yes, 28% no.
• California Prop 86. $2.60 per pack cigarette surtax with funds for hospitals. LA Times, Sept.--47% yes, 42% no. Field Poll, Sept.--53% yes, 40% no. Field Poll, July--63% yes, 32% no.
• Florida Amendment 4. Requires state to use tobacco settlement money for tobacco education. Zogby for Miami Herald, Sept.--74% yes, 22% no. Mason-Dixon, Sept.--56% yes, 21% no.
• Idaho SJR 107. Restricts endowment from tobacco settlement funds.
• ** Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3. Raises tobacco taxes and creates a trust fund for smoking prevention. (** Whether this measure actually gets voted on is currently being decided by the courts.)
• South Dakota Measure 2. Increases tobacco tax and devotes revenue to health services and education.
  

Other taxes and spending
A wide array of tax and spending measures will be on the ballot; here are just a few of special interest:

• Alaska Measure 2. Levies an annual tax on leases of known gas reserves, to be be repealed once a gas pipeline to the lower 48 states is built.
• California Prop 1C. $2.85 billion bonds for low-income housing. LA Times, Sept.--51% yes, 34% no. Field Poll, Sept.--58% yes, 28% no. Public Policy Institute of California, Sept.--57% yes, 30% no.
• Florida Amendment 6. Increases homestead tax exemption for low-income seniors. Zogby for Miami Herald, Sept.--79% yes, 17% no. Mason-Dixon, Sept.--67% yes, 14% no.
• Florida Amendment 7. Reduces homestead tax for disabled veterans. Zogby for Miami Herald, Sept.--86% yes, 12% no. Mason-Dixon, Sept.--70% yes, 9% no.
• Washington I-920. Repeals estate tax.
  

EDUCATION

It's a big year for education spending on the ballot, with most measures set to increase what's being spent. Competing initiatives in Colorado will be worth watching; a conservative measure requires 65 percent of school funding to be spent in the classroom, while a measure placed by the Democratic legislature offers a somewhat more flexible alternative.

Education spending

• Alabama Amendment 2. Requires an additional local property tax in school districts where property taxes are low.
• Arkansas Referred Question 1. Authorizes the state to borrow $250 million for education.
• California Prop 1D. $10.416 billion bonds for public school facilities. LA Times, Sept.--43%yes, 39% no. Field Poll, Sept.--52% yes, 33% no. Public Policy Institute of California, Sept.--49% yes, 40% no.
• California Prop 88. Establishes a $50 parcel tax for schools.
• Colorado Amendment 39. Requires 65 percent of school spending spent on classroom instruction; backed by Republicans. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--58% yes, 25% no.
• Colorado Referendum J. Requires 65 percent of school spending spent on classroom instruction; backed by Democrats, with a broader definition of "classroom" spending. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--66% yes, 21% no.
• Idaho Prop 1. Adds 1 percent to sales tax; funds dedicated to K-12 education.
• Michigan Proposal 5. Sets minimum spending levels for schools.
• Nebraska Amendment 5. Dedicates $40 million to early childhood development.
• Nevada Question 1. Requires the legislature to appropriate funds for education before other programs. Already approved once; goes into effect after second voter approval in 2006.
• New Mexico Bond Issue B. $118.36 million bonds for higher education capital improvements.
• North Dakota Constitutional Amendment 1. Allows public universities to spend more than their endowment interest.
• Rhode Island Question 4. $72.79 million bonds for buildings at state university and college.
• Wyoming Amendment B. Repeals limits on redistribution of property taxes for schools.
• Wyoming Amendment C. Creates a fund for higher education scholarships.
  

LAND USE

For ballot measures in 2006, the signature issue may be land use. Voters in eight states will be asked to curb the use of eminent domain for private purposes - a relatively non-controversial question. Much more divisive, however, is whether landowners should be paid for development restrictions placed on their landholdings, or else freed of those development restrictions. Victories on just a couple of the more far-reaching measures would be a huge win for property-rights backers (who have likely benefited from voter confusion over the two types of measures) as well as a huge blow for environmentalists.

Eminent domain only

• Florida Amendment 8. Bars eminent domain for private purposes. Zogby for Miami Herald, Sept.--55 percent yes, 36 percent no. Mason-Dixon, Sept.--54% yes, 22% no.
• Georgia Amendment 1. Bars eminent domain for private purposes.
• Michigan Proposal 4. Bars eminent domain for private purposes.
• Nevada Question 2. Bars eminent domain for private purposes. Mason-Dixon for Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept.--60% yes, 20% no.
• New Hampshire Amendment 1. Bars eminent domain for private purposes.
• North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Amendment 2. Bars eminent domain for private purposes.
• Oregon Measure 39. Bars eminent domain for private purposes.
• South Carolina Amendment 5. Bars eminent domain for private purposes.
  

Eminent domain plus property takings

• Arizona Prop 207. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations.
• California Prop 90. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations
• Idaho Prop 2. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations
• ** Montana I-154. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations. Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--51% yes, 24% no. (** Whether this measure actually gets voted on is currently being decided by the courts.)
• Washington I-933. Bars eminent domain for private purposes, but also requires government to either pay landholders for regulatory barriers to development or else waive those regulations
  

Other land use

• Arizona Prop 106. Preserves 694,000 acres of state trust land. Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--49% yes, 21% no.
• Arizona Prop 105. Preserves 43,000 acres of state trust land (is a response to 106 backed by cattle producers). Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--36% yes, 34% no.
• Maryland Question 1. Requires legislature's approval before public works board sells parklands.
• Michigan Proposal 1. Bars diversion of state conservation funds for other purposes.
• Nebraska Amendment 1. Allows local governments to acquire land for use by nonprofit organizations.
• Nebraska Amendment 6. Allows public debt for property that is not blighted.
• New Jersey Public Question 2. Dedicates some state environment funds to recreational areas.
  

HEALTH CARE

After being a staple of ballot measures in recent election cycles, health care is the incredible shrinking issue of 2006. Only one measure, an Oregon proposal on prescription drugs, has made the ballot this year.

Health Care

• Oregon Measure 44. Allows residents without prescription drug coverage to participate in state program.

BUSINESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Pro-renewable energy measures are a growth area after a similar measure passed last year in Colorado. Will high energy prices lead voters to pull the lever for "yes"? Also, pay attention to a cell-phone tax cut in South Dakota and an Oregon measure, backed by a left-right coalition, to prevent insurers from using credit scores. If either succeeds, the idea could spread nationally.

Energy

• California Prop 87. Taxes energy companies and uses the proceeds to spend an estimated $4 billion for alternative energy research. LA Times, Sept.--45% yes, 38% no. Field Poll, Sept.--44% yes, 41% no. Field Poll, July--52% yes, 31% no.
• Washington I-937. Requires utilities to use minimum amounts of renewable fuels.
  

Business and labor regulation

• Massachusetts Prop 1. Permits sale of wine in food stores.
• Massachusetts Prop 3. Allows child care providers in private homes to bargain collectively with state.
• Oklahoma Question 725. Allows use of rainy-day funds to subsidize at-risk manufacturers.
• South Dakota Measure 8. Repeals 4 percent tax on wireless phone service.
• Virginia Question 2. Allows churches to incorporate.
  

Transportation

• California Prop 1A. Prevents diversion of gas tax revenue intended for roads.
• California Prop 1B. $19.925 billion in bonds for road projects. LA Times, Sept.--39% yes, 41% no. Field Poll, Sept.--52% yes, 36% no. Public Policy Institute of California, Sept.--51% yes, 36% no.
• Minnesota Constitutional Amendment. Requires motor vehicle tax revenue to be used for transportation projects.
• New Jersey Public Question 3. Increases fraction of gas tax dedicated to transportation spending.
• Rhode Island Question 5. $88.5 million bonds for transportation projects.
  

Other infrastructure

• California Prop 1E. $4.09 billion bonds for levee repairs and flood control projects. LA Times, Sept.--50% yes, 29% no. Field Poll, Sept.--51% yes, 36% no. Public Policy Institute of California, Sept.--55% yes, 30% no.
• California Prop 84. $5.388 billion bonds for water and conservation projects. Field Poll, Sept.--50% yes, 30% no.
• New Mexico Amendment 3. Creates but does not fund water trust fund.
  

Insurance

• Oregon Measure 42. Prohibits use of credit scores when calculating insurance premiums.

LEGAL AFFAIRS

A conservative backlash against judges has spawned several initiatives to curb the judiciary, most notably in South Dakota, where a measure would open up judges and other government officials to being sued over decisions they've made.

Judges

• Colorado Amendment 40. Establishes terms limits for appellate court judges. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--54% yes, 37% no.
• Hawaii Amendment 3. Repeals mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges.
• Louisiana Question 6. Authorizes legislature to create new district court judgeships.
• **Montana CI-98. Judges may be recalled for any reason, not just incompetence. Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--45% yes, 39% no. (**Whether this measure actually gets voted on is currently being decided by the courts.)
• Oregon Measure 40. Requires appellate court judges to be elected by district.
• South Dakota Amendment E. Strips judges and other government officials of protections from being sued for their decisions.
  

Other jurisprudence

• Arizona Prop 301. Limits probation for methamphetamine convicts.
• California Prop 83. Increases penalties for sex crimes. Field Poll, July--52% yes, 31% no.
• Hawaii Amendment 4. Allows legislature to set standard for conviction in sex crimes against minors.
• Maryland Question 2. Increases appeals to Court of Special Appeals.
• Maryland Question 3. Limits right to jury trial for civil cases of less than $10,000.
• Nebraska Amendment 4. Allows executive and courts to supervise parolees.
• North Dakota Initiated Statutory Measure 3. Requires joint custody of children after divorce.
  

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

The Jack Abramoff scandal in Washington has had reverberations outside the Beltway, with several states set to vote on measures to stiffen ethics rules. And as usual, a plethora of voting-related measures pepper the ballot in many states.

Government ethics

• Colorado Amendment 41. Gift ban and two-year revolving-door restrictions for government officials.
• Missouri Amendment 7. Strips pensions from government officials convicted of felonies. In addition, this measure would establish a "citizens' commission" that institutes pay raises unless two-thirds of lawmakers vote against them­ an easier path to raising pay than previously.
• Montana I-153. Two-years revolving-door restrictions. Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers, Sept.--70% yes, 15% no.
• Oklahoma Question 724. Prohibits paying legislators who are in jail.
• South Dakota Measure 5. Requires state-owned aircraft to be used only for official business.
  

Voting and elections

• Arizona Prop 200. Awards $1 million to a randomly chosen voter after each general election; designed to boost voter turnout. Arizona State University for KAET, Sept.--40% yes, 47% no.
• Arizona Prop 205. Requires absentee ballots to be mailed to all voters.
• California Prop 89. Offers public funding for candidates who agree to spending limits. Public Policy Institute of California, Sept.--37% yes, 53% no.
• Maryland Question 4. Should supermajorities be needed at state election board, and should local election board procedures be changed?
• Massachusetts Prop 2. Allows fusion voting (cross-party endorsements).
• Oklahoma Question 733. Allows sale of alcohol on Election Day by package stores.
• Oregon Measure 46. Allows limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.
• Oregon Measure 47. Limits individual campaign contributions and bans campaign contributions from corporations and unions; takes effect only if Measure 46 is approved.
• Rhode Island Question 2. Prohibits incarcerated felons from voting, restores voting rights when discharged.
  

Initiatives about initiatives

• Colorado Amendment 38. Extends initiative rights throughout state and limits scope of single subject rule. POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News, Sept.--39% yes, 32% no.
• Florida Amendment 3. Requires 60 percent voter approval for constitutional amendments. Zogby for Miami Herald, Sept.--67% yes, 27% no. Mason-Dixon, Sept.--44% yes, 23% no.
• Maine Question 2. Requires initiatives to be submitted by constitutional deadline.
  

Legislator salaries

• Arizona Prop 302. Increases legislator pay.
• Nevada Question 11. Increases legislator pay.
• Hawaii Amendment 2. Establishes commission to recommend state salaries.
  

Term limits

• Oregon Measure 45. Restores term limits for legislators that had been struck down by the courts.

Redistricting

• New Hampshire Amendment 2. Prohibits division of cities when drawing legislative districts.

Removes obsolete language

• Colorado Referendum G. Removes obsolete constitutional provisions.
• New Mexico Amendment 1. Repeals obsolete Alien Land law.
  

Other government operations

• Colorado Referendum F. Extends time to contest recall petitions.
• Florida Amendment 1. Changes budget procedures to limit use of nonrecurring revenue.
• Georgia Amendment 3. Allows state to issue special license plates.
• Louisiana Question 7. Replaces seven New Orleans tax assessors with one.
• Montana C-43. Changes name of State Auditor to Insurance Commissioner.
• Nebraska Measure 422. Repeals a school district consolidation law.
• Nebraska Amendment 2. Allows local government to manage endowments as "prudent investor."
• ** Ohio Issue 1. A referendum to repeal a law that cuts workers' compensation benefits.(** Whether this measure actually gets voted on is currently being decided by the courts.)
• South Carolina Amendment 3A. Allows state retirement systems to invest in foreign companies.
• South Carolina Amendment 3B. Eliminates state investment advisory panel.
  

Sources: Initiative and Referendum Institute; National Conference of State Legislatures; Ballot Initiative Strategy Center; Rothenberg Political Report research.

Louis Jacobson is the deputy editor of Roll Call and has covered ballot initiatives each cycle since 1994. He also handicaps the 50 state legislatures for the Rothenberg Political Report.