Summary: Anti-government conservatives have been slow to return their census forms.
According to an article in the Houston Chronicle today, politically conservative Texas has been behind in completing the 2010 Census so far.
From the article:
Texas is counting on the 2010 Census to deliver four new congressional districts, four new Electoral College votes in presidential elections, and millions of dollars in additional federal aid. But, as some elected officials are starting to worry, Uncle Sam can't deliver anything to the rapidly growing Sun Belt state unless Texas residents deliver their forms back to the government.
As of Friday afternoon, only 27 percent of Texas households had filled in and returned their census forms — well below the national average of 34 percent — according to computer data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
And there is reason to suggest politics is behind this trend.
Polling by the Pew Research Center finds Democrats are more likely than other Americans to view the census as “very important” to the country. Seventy-six percent of Democrats call this year's count very important, compared with 61 percent of Republicans and independents.
In Texas, some of the counties with the lowest census return rates are among the state's most Republican, including Briscoe County in the Panhandle, 8 percent; King County, near Lubbock, 5 percent; Culberson County, near El Paso, 11 percent; and Newton County, in deep East Texas, 18 percent…
…There is a reason for the enthusiasm gap on the census: A number of prominent conservative and libertarian Republicans have been blasting the census for months…
…Earlier this month, Texas Rep. Ron Paul voted against a congressional resolution asking Americans to participate in the census.
“The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information,” the Lake Jackson Republican recently said. “It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans.”
Houston-area GOP lawmakers say anti-census feelings run deep among their constituents.
“People are concerned about the apparent intrusive nature of the census,” said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble. “People are very concerned that the government is going too far.”
Of course, it is considerably more expensive for the government when you don’t return your census form. Because the Census is required in the Constitution, the Census Bureau has to hire interviewers to go to your home if you fail to send it in the mail.
But because the Census is apparently “intrusive” conservatives seem to be willing to add a bit more to the national debt. Plus they seem to be less interested in the fact that they would lose representation in Congress.
Not that those Democrats would mind the latter prospect.
Summary: As Dorgan, Dodd, and Ritter announce their plans to retire, the Democratic Party may stand to lose more races up and down the ticket
Last night it was reported that Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) will retire this year, leaving an open seat in the Roughrider State.
This was unquestionably bad news for Democrats. Dorgan was able to hold on to the seat solely based on the incumbency effect - the national Democratic Party is not very popular in North Dakota. At least it won’t be in 2010.
Two candidates have emerged to possibly run as Democrats for Dorgan’s seat: at-large Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) and MSNBC talk show host Ed Shultz. Shultz is way too liberal to be elected in North Dakota, and we’ve mentioned before how TV personalities would have a lot of difficulty running for office.
But for Democrats, the best case scenario would be a Shultz campaign and Pomeroy keeping his House seat, because that would likely turn red if he ran for Senate - and there’s no guarantee he’d win the higher office. Obviously, some Democrats disagree.
There was some light at the end of the tunnel for the Dems, though, when it was reported Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will retire as well. Dodd was in really bad shape for a 2010 re-election and a GOP pick-up would not have been shocking. Now it will be.
Democrats have already lined-up their candidate for the Constitution State: the popular State Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal. And Blumenthal has already told the press he’s all-in, leaving little doubt that this was all planned out ahead of time.
Regardless, a Dodd loss was not inevitable, and now a Democratic loss in North Dakota may quite possibly be.
Also recently announced, Governor Bill Ritter (D-CO) may be stepping down after his term is complete. That leaves a big open-seat race in the Centennial State. However, Republicans have been campaigning in full swing already to take down the incumbent Democrat, and they have a long head start over any Democrats who would now have to step in to replace Ritter. While it could have easily been a GOP pick-up anyway, this retirement probably hurts Colorado Democrats a lot more than it helps.
Back in November, I took a look at Senate and Gubernatorial projections for this year and estimated net losses of less than 6 Senate races and less than 5 gubernatorial races for Democrats.
While these retirements don’t significantly change those figures, I think it makes the prospects for how many less a bit worse. It’s simply a bleaker picture than it was yesterday.
Nate Silver has a much more conservative estimate of Democratic losses. In a post today, he had this to say:
"If I aggregate my estimates from the individual races, I show Republicans picking up an average of 4.60 Democratic seats, but also, Democrats picking up an average of 2.65 Republican seats, for a net Republican gain of 1.95 seats…
… It also bears remembering that, although I remain quite pessimistic about what will happen to Democrats in the House, the Senate playing field is intrinsically more favorable to them. The Senators who are up for re-election this year are those who were elected in 2004 -- a good cycle for Republicans. And while Democrats were hurt by their retirements in North Dakota, Delaware, New York, Illinois and probably Colorado (they were helped by Chris Dodd's retirement in Connecticut), the Republicans have created opportunities for them with the retirements in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and perhaps Florida (they were helped by Jim Bunning's retirement in Kentucky). If the 2006 senate class were up for re-election this year, Democrats would potentially face very substantial losses, but fortunately for Democrats they aren't."
Of course, 2010 is not only important because it is a likely backlash-year for the majority party, it’s also a critical election year at the state level. The State Legislatures will be redistricting their states after this year’s census, and Democrats were already at risk in those races.
With these retirements on the federal level, state Democrats may be feeling ambitious enough to run for higher office, leaving their seats open for competitive races (the Political Ripple Effect). Obviously, this isn’t a big deal per se in North Dakota (which isn’t big enough for 2 congressional districts) but it could be in Colorado and even possibly in Connecticut.
That could be very beneficial to the GOP for the new decade.
Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Virginia.
Last month, Virginia State Senator R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath) introduced a bill to require a bipartisan commission to redraw the state’s districts after the 2010 US Census. The goal was to make redistricting “less political”, reduce gerrymandering, and make elections more competitive for incumbents.
Earlier this month, the State Senate approved the bill unanimously. Democratic Governor Tim Kaine likes the bill. Yet it had already been shot down by the House of Delegates in a 4 to 2 decision within a Privileges and Elections subcommittee.
In fact, this is the seventh time Deeds has introduced the bill and the third time it has passed in the State Senate, but it has never been approved by the House of Delegates subcommittee.
Why won’t the lower House approve?
Backdrop: With their second Democratic governor in a row, two Democratic US Senators, a Democratic Congressional Delegation, a new Democratically-controlled State Senate, and their electoral votes for President Obama, the Commonwealth is quickly turning blue. The last bastion of GOP power is in the House of Delegates.
To make incumbents vulnerable with redistricting would put the Republicans at serious risk of losing control - or at least edging their control - of the House of Delegates where they currently hold an eight-delegate lead.
To make matters worse for them, seven Republican delegates have announced they are retiring or running for higher office. The blog Virginia Political Wire also expects as many as seven more Republicans to retire from the lower House. The Virginia GOP will not want to lose seats due to retiring incumbents north of Richmond.
In fact, this is not at all surprising. It is very typical for redistricting to protect incumbents when two state Houses are controlled by different parties. It is only when one party controls both Houses that redistricting makes elections competitive - and in such a way as to favor the party with power.
In Virginia, redistricting will favor incumbents of both parties - so long as the GOP can hold on to the House of Delegates after the 2009 elections. Other than that, races in the Commonwealth may become more competitive as the Democratic surge continues, but it will not be because of redistricting.
To see a great map of the House of Delegates districts - according to party - please visit http://www.bluecommonwealth.com/vahousemap
