Pennsylvania

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Josh Shapiro to Nominate Al Schmidt as Pennsylvania’s Elections Chief

      by

      Josh Shapiro, who will take office as governor this month, says he will nominate Al Schmidt, a longtime Republican official from Philadelphia, to be secretary of the commonwealth.Pennsylvania’s incoming Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, will nominate a Philadelphia Republican who resisted Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results to serve as the state’s chief election official, Mr. Shapiro said Thursday.For Mr. Shapiro, who will be sworn into office on Jan. 17, his choice for secretary of the commonwealth represents both an olive branch to moderate Republicans and a public affirmation of belief in the state’s election systems. Al Schmidt, Mr. Shapiro’s pick for the job, is a former Philadelphia city commissioner and longtime political figure.“Al Schmidt has a proven track record of defending our democracy, protecting voting rights and standing up to extremism — even in the face of grave threats,” Mr. Shapiro said in a statement released by his office. “I know he is ready to continue the hard work of preserving and strengthening our democracy.”For a decade, Mr. Schmidt, 51, held the Republican-designated seat on Philadelphia’s three-member city commission, which oversees municipal elections. He also served as executive director of the Philadelphia G.O.P. and as a senior adviser to the Republican Party of Pennsylvania.Still, Mr. Schmidt was relatively unknown outside Philadelphia until Mr. Trump, after the 2020 election, applied public pressure on him to stop counting absentee ballots. In 2021, Mr. Schmidt testified to the Senate that Mr. Trump’s comments had led to death threats that he said were intended to “intimidate and coerce us into not counting every valid vote.”“After the president tweeted about me, my wife and I received threats that named our children, included my home address and images of my home, and threated to put their ‘heads on spikes,’” Mr. Schmidt said. “What was once a fairly obscure administrative job is now one where lunatics are threatening to murder your children.”Last summer, Mr. Schmidt appeared before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and revealed written threats received by members of his family from Mr. Trump’s supporters, including one that read “Heads on spikes. Treasonous Schmidts.”Mr. Schmidt said in the statement released by Mr. Shapiro’s office that he would work to ensure that elections “remain free and fair here in Pennsylvania, and that we do more to ensure every eligible voter can make their voice heard.”Mr. Schmidt, whose nomination will need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled State Senate, is the first cabinet appointment announced by Mr. Shapiro since November, when he defeated Doug Mastriano, a Republican and prominent election denier. Mr. Mastriano, a retired Army colonel, chartered buses to Washington for the Jan. 6, 2021, rally that led to the attack on the Capitol; he campaigned on a platform of restricting ballot access in Pennsylvania.In an interview last month, Mr. Shapiro said he hoped that Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature would agree to change the state’s law that forbids the processing of absentee ballots and early votes before Election Day. The ballot procedures, which can drag out the counting, helped fuel the Trump-inspired threats against Mr. Schmidt.He also described the role for which he eventually nominated Mr. Schmidt.“I’m going to appoint a pro-democracy secretary of state,” he said in the interview. “We will respect the will of the people, certify the winners, whether we agree with the pick or not. That’s going to be my charge to my secretary of state.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Surprise in Pennsylvania: Republicans Back a (Former?) Democrat for Speaker

      by

      Representative Mark Rozzi, long a moderate Democrat, pledged not to caucus with either party as speaker of the closely divided state House of Representatives. Many questions remain.HARRISBURG, Pa. — The new legislative session began at noon on Tuesday, and despite the cheery bouquets and wide-eyed family members, the statehouse was humming with nervous anticipation. For weeks, it had been unclear which party could claim a majority in the state House of Representatives: the Democrats won more seats in November, but because of a death and two resignations, the Republicans had more members for now.The election of a speaker, the new House’s first piece of business, was going to put this fiercely debated question to the test.After a long afternoon of suspense, and to the surprise of nearly everyone in the House, the choice was made: a moderate Democrat from the Reading area, nominated by two Republicans, who was on almost no one’s radar and who pledged in his first speech to be “the commonwealth’s first independent speaker.”“I’m sure a lot of you didn’t see this coming today,” the new speaker, Representative Mark Rozzi, said at the rostrum.Harrisburg is not the only capital where the mere act of deciding who is in charge has proved fraught in the early days of the new year. Before the session in Pennsylvania began, the repeated botched attempts by Republicans in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to elect a speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives were playing out on televisions in the Pennsylvania statehouse. Meanwhile, Democratic state representatives next door in Ohio helped elect a Republican House speaker there who is not as conservative as the candidate backed by most Republicans in their supermajority.The fights in Washington and Ohio were ideological, but the maneuvering in Pennsylvania was largely about strategy, given the bizarre circumstances leading up to Tuesday’s vote. Democrats outperformed expectations on Election Day in Pennsylvania, winning a U.S. Senate seat, the governor’s office and, perhaps most surprising of all, control of the state House, where they had been out of power for more than a decade.It was only a one-seat majority, though, and one of the winning candidates had died a few weeks before the November election. Then, in early December, two Democrats who had been re-elected to the House and at the same time had been elected to higher offices resigned their House seats.At issue in the weeks that followed was whether “majority” meant the party that the voters in the most districts had chosen, or the party that had the most members at the moment the session began. The Democrats argued for the former, the Republicans the latter. The question was put to the courts, even as Republicans and Democrats held dueling swearing-in ceremonies last month for House majority leader.Democrats are heavily favored to win the special elections to fill the three vacant seats, but the first of those votes won’t take place until at least Feb. 7. So the looming question as the session opened Tuesday was which party would control the House for now, while Republicans have a 101-99 advantage.Few lawmakers, it seemed, began the day Tuesday thinking of Mr. Rozzi as a candidate for speaker. Members recited the Pledge of Allegiance at a swearing-in ceremony.Matt Smith/Associated PressThe significance was not just symbolic, even in a state where power was already divided, with a Republican-controlled State Senate and a Democratic governor. Republicans hoped to vote on several constitutional amendments that would not require Gov. Josh Shapiro’s signature; one would require voters to show identification at the polls and another would give the legislature the power to reject regulations put in place by the executive branch. Democrats were worried that the Republicans would also change the rules of the House if they briefly won control, making it hard to elect a new speaker after the Democrats retook the majority.Caucuses and party leaders gathered all morning on Tuesday to discuss strategy, talks that continued in the afternoon in smaller huddles on the House floor. A vote to adjourn without picking a speaker deadlocked at 100-100, with one Republican voting with the Democrats.Then the clerk called for nominations for speaker. What came next were a series of surprises. First, Representative Jim Gregory, a Republican representing a district outside Altoona, stood and named Mr. Rozzi, a Democrat.“As we are gathered in this chamber today, we must look at our razor-thin majorities,” Mr. Gregory said, urging the members to put “people over politics.” Then another lawmaker, the Republican House whip, seconded the nomination.All eyes turned toward the Democrats, and specifically toward Representative Joanna McClinton, the Democratic leader, who had been expected to become the first Black woman to serve as speaker of the Pennsylvania House. Ms. McClinton announced that she supported the nomination of Mr. Rozzi.With 16 Republicans, including party leaders, joining all of the Democrats, Mr. Rozzi won the speakership, defeating a traditionally conservative Republican who only minutes earlier had been the presumptive Republican choice.Virtually no one in the House other than Mr. Gregory and Mr. Rozzi, it seemed, had recognized Mr. Rozzi as a candidate when the day began. Mr. Gregory said afterward that he raised the idea with Republican leaders shortly before nominating him on the floor. Mr. Gregory had developed a good working relationship with Mr. Rozzi, but he also saw nominating him as a way to outflank an almost assured Democratic majority.“Here in Pennsylvania, we play two different games: Some people play checkers, and some people play chess,” Mr. Gregory said after the vote. “And I think what you just witnessed is a Democrat member who was in the majority leave the majority to go independent.”As the Republicans saw it, Mr. Rozzi’s move would mean that the Democrats could not achieve a majority even after the special elections. In the halls of the capitol afterward, Republicans mulled how such an evenly split House would operate: who would control committees, for example, and how they would be divvied up.But it had all happened so quickly that on Wednesday, there were far more questions than answers. Mr. Rozzi, who has been a reliable moderate Democrat during his tenure in the House, is best known for his efforts on behalf of victims of childhood sexual abuse. Having spoken openly of being raped by a priest as a child, Mr. Rozzi sponsored, along with Mr. Gregory, a constitutional amendment allowing victims to sue their abusers long after criminal statutes had expired. Mr. Rozzi pushed for a bill to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases, an issue he discussed in 2016 with the governor at the time, Tom Wolf.Nicole Bengiveno/The New York TimesIf the House and Senate vote on it early in the new session, that amendment could be on the ballot as soon as this May. Mr. Gregory said that making sure the House moved quickly on the amendment was the main reason that he and Mr. Rozzi had begun discussing their plan for the speakership.While Mr. Rozzi did emphasize in his initial remarks before the House that he aimed to be an independent speaker, pledging not to caucus with either party, it remained unclear what that would mean in practice.In a private meeting with Democrats after the vote on Tuesday, Mr. Rozzi assured them that he still considered himself a Democrat, comments first reported by SpotlightPA, a state news outlet, and confirmed by a Democratic House member.In response, the House Republican leader, Representative Bryan Cutler, said in a statement that Republicans “continue to believe what he committed to publicly in his address and what he promised to our leaders privately about fully becoming an Independent has not changed.”On Tuesday evening, after hours of hushed meetings, Mr. Rozzi briefly addressed a crowd of reporters in the capitol rotunda who were hungry for any information that would make sense of the day’s events.“I look forward to talking to you more about my plans as speaker, but such a heavy discussion deserves considered forethought,” the new House speaker of the fifth-largest state said, standing in the glare of spotlights at a hastily assembled lectern. “And as this was unexpected, I will be making no further comments tonight. Thank you.”Many of the lingering questions may not be answered until the House reconvenes, at a time to be set by the speaker. As of Wednesday afternoon, no date had been announced. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Which Party Controls the Pennsylvania House? It’s TBD.

      by

      Three seats won by Democrats in November are now vacant, giving Republicans more House members for now and sowing uncertainty ahead of the legislative session.More than a month after the elections in Pennsylvania, which were among the most closely watched in the country, a question remains unanswered in the state’s House of Representatives: Who, exactly, is in charge?For now, both the Democratic and Republican parties are claiming a majority in the chamber, and representatives from both parties have declared themselves the House majority leader. Both are accusing the other party of ignoring the will of the voters, the rule of law or some combination thereof. With the House set to reconvene, and presumably to choose a speaker in less than three weeks, the question now sits with the courts.Election Day was largely disappointing for Pennsylvania Republicans, who fell short in the race for governor, and, with the victory of John Fetterman, the generously tattooed Democrat, lost their seat in the U.S. Senate.Democrats also won a majority of seats in the State House for the first time in a dozen years, even as Republicans maintained control of the State Senate. But the margin in the House appeared to be wafer-thin, 102-101, decided by fewer than 65 votes in a race in the Philadelphia suburbs. It turned out to be even more tenuous — one of the victorious lawmakers was dead.In early October, Anthony DeLuca, 85, a Democrat who represented a district in the Pittsburgh suburbs and was the longest-serving member of the House, died of complications from lymphoma. His death occurred too close to the election to replace his name on the ballot, and, a month later, he was re-elected in a landslide.Republicans saw a stalemate. Until a special election could be held in Mr. DeLuca’s district, they reasoned, each party had 101 representatives, and neither could claim a majority in the House.An opinion issued last Wednesday by the Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, a nonpartisan advisory body, seemed to concur. “Under current law, an individual must at least be elected and living to qualify as a member of a legislative caucus,” the opinion concluded, adding that “the House Democratic Caucus falls short of the 102 members necessary for a majority.”That same day, two Democratic representatives who had won their House races but who, in the same election, had been voted into higher office — Summer Lee, now an incoming U.S. congresswoman, and Austin Davis, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor-elect — formally resigned their House seats. Republicans concluded that they now had a majority outright, at least until special elections took place for all three seats.Democrats saw things differently. Voters had chosen Democratic representatives in 102 of the state’s 203 districts, they said, and by particularly overwhelming margins in the three seats that are now vacant.“We won 102 districts compared to the Republicans’ 101,” Joanna McClinton, the House Democratic leader — and, according to her, the majority leader — said in an interview. “It’s a fact, it’s indisputable.”Within hours of her two fellow Democrats’ resignations last week, Ms. McClinton was sworn into office in an otherwise empty House chamber. She then scheduled elections for all three of the vacant seats on Feb. 7, the earliest date possible under state rules, and Pennsylvania’s acting secretary of state, a Democrat, signed off on the plan.Republicans were livid, accusing the Democrats of having staged a “paperwork insurrection.” Within days, Representative Brian Cutler, the leader of the House Republicans, sued the secretary of state, arguing that Ms. McClinton was not the House majority leader and thus lacked the authority to set special elections.On Monday morning, it was Mr. Cutler’s turn to be sworn in on the House floor. In an interview afterward, he said that since he was the House Republican leader and since there were 101 Republicans ready to take office, compared with 99 Democrats, “the math makes me the majority leader.”Mr. Cutler said that he would soon submit his own dates for the special elections but that the recent moves by the Democrats had made it too complicated to figure out the dates just yet.What happens now is anyone’s guess.Adam Bonin, an elections lawyer in Philadelphia who has long worked with Democrats, said the stakes were significant. “This isn’t just about who’s in charge of this chamber for the first month,” he said. “This really is about all sorts of potential exercises of power.”Among them is a Senate bill that would put a handful of constitutional amendments proposed by Republicans on a statewide ballot — including ones that would establish a voter ID requirement, expand the legislature’s power and assert that there is no state constitutional right to abortion. If each chamber approved the bill during the upcoming legislative session, the questions would be put to a statewide vote.Some Democrats are also concerned that if Republicans control the House, even temporarily, they might change the rules to ensure that their choice for speaker keeps the job even if Democrats win control after the special elections.Mr. Cutler said such speculation was premature, insisting that the first priority of the session should be electing a new speaker.As for which party is in charge when that vote happens, it is too soon to say. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Warnock’s Victory Forges Democrats’ Path Through the New Battlegrounds

      by

      Forget about Florida and Ohio: Georgia and Arizona are poised to be the next kingmakers of presidential politics.Follow our latest updates on the Georgia Senate runoff.For decades, Florida and Ohio reigned supreme over presidential politics. The two states relished their role crowning presidents and spawning political clichés. Industrial Cleveland faced off against white-collar Cincinnati, the Midwestern snowbirds of the Villages against the Puerto Rican diaspora of the Orlando suburbs.But the Georgia runoff, the final note of the 2022 midterm elections, may have said goodbye to all that. The Marietta moms are in charge now.Senator Raphael Warnock’s win over Herschel Walker — his fifth victory in just over two years — proved that the Democratic surge in the Peach State two years ago was no Trump-era fluke, no one-off rebuke of an unpopular president. Georgia, with its storied civil rights history, booming Atlanta suburbs like Marietta and exploding ethnic diversity, is now officially contested ground, joining a narrow set of states that will select the next president.Mr. Warnock’s race was the final marker for a 2024 presidential road map that political strategists, officials and politicians in both parties say will run largely through six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.The shrunken, shifted battlefield reflects a diversifying country remade by the polarizing politics of the Trump era. As white, working-class voters defected from Democrats, persuaded by Donald J. Trump’s populist cultural appeals and anti-elitist rhetoric, demographic changes opened up new presidential battlegrounds in the West and South.That is not good for Mr. Trump, who lost all six of those states to President Biden two years ago, as he begins to plot his third presidential bid. Other Republicans have found more success pulling together winning coalitions in states defined by their growth, new transplants, strong economies and a young and diverse population. But if the party wants to reclaim the White House in 2024, Republicans will have to improve their performance across the new terrain.“You’re going to have your soccer moms and Peloton dads. Those college-educated voters, specifically in the suburbs, are ones that Republicans have to learn how to win,” said Kristin Davison, a Republican strategist who worked on Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s win in Virginia, a once-red state that, until Mr. Youngkin’s victory, had turned a more suburban shade of blue. “It’s these growing, diverse communities combined with the college-educated voters.”“I secured my vote!” stickers at a polling place in Georgia.Nicole Buchanan for The New York TimesVoters at Morningside Presbyterian Church in Fulton County on Tuesday morning.Nicole Buchanan for The New York TimesIn most of the six states, midterm elections brought out deep shades of purple. In Arizona, Democrats won the governor’s mansion for the first time since 2006, but a race for attorney general remains too close to call. In Nevada, the party’s candidate won re-election to the Senate by less than one percentage point, while Republicans won the governor’s office. The reverse happened in Wisconsin.Mr. Warnock narrowly defeated Mr. Walker on Tuesday. But Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, handily toppled Stacey Abrams, a Democratic star, in his re-election bid last month.Only Pennsylvania and Michigan had clean Democratic sweeps in statewide offices.Republicans, meanwhile, swept Florida, with Gov. Ron DeSantis winning re-election in the state by easily the largest margin by a Republican candidate for governor in modern history. In Ohio, Representative Tim Ryan, widely considered to be one the Democratic Party’s strongest candidates, lost his bid for Senate by six percentage points.That new map isn’t entirely new, of course. Since 2008, Democrats have hoped that demographic changes and millions of dollars could help put the growing pockets of the South and West in play, allowing the party to stop chasing the votes of white, working-class voters across Ohio and Iowa.But the party has made inroads before, only to backslide later. When Barack Obama carried North Carolina in 2008, pundits and party officials heralded the arrival of the Democratic revival in the New South. President Obama lost the state four years later and Mr. Biden was defeated there by a little more than a percentage point.Democrats argue their victories in Georgia will be more resilient. Mr. Warnock’s coalition looked very similar to Mr. Biden’s — an alliance of voters of color, younger voters and college-educated suburbanites.For Republicans, the winning formula requires maintaining their sizable advantage among rural voters and working-class, white voters, without fully embracing the far-right stances and combative politics of Mr. Trump that could hurt their standing with more moderate swing voters. Mr. Kemp followed that path to an eight-percentage-point victory.But Mr. Walker was in no position to expand his voting base. He was recruited to run by Mr. Trump, despite allegations of domestic abuse, no political experience and few clear policy positions, and spent much of his campaign focused on his party’s most reliable voters.While votes were still being counted late Tuesday, Mr. Warnock appeared to improve on Mr. Biden’s margins in the suburban counties around Atlanta, including Gwinnett, Newton and Cobb County, home to Marietta.Herschel Walker and his team after a campaign stop in Dawsonville, Ga.Dustin Chambers for The New York TimesGreeting supporters at a Dawsonville restaurant.Dustin Chambers for The New York TimesDemocrats recognized the rising influence of the Sun Belt in a high-profile way last week, when the Democratic National Committee advanced a plan to replace Iowa, a former battleground state that has grown more Republican recently, with South Carolina and add Nevada, Georgia and Michigan to the early-state calendar.“The Sun Belt delivered the Senate Democratic majority,” said Senator Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada who will face her first re-election campaign in 2024. “The party needs to invest in us and that’s what they’ve done by changing the calendar.”Already, investment in these new battlegrounds has been eye-popping. In Georgia, $1.4 billion has been spent by both parties on three Senate races and the one contest for governor since the beginning of 2020, according to a New York Times analysis.The flood of political activity has surprised even some of those who have long predicted that their states would grow more competitive.“We all thought Arizona would probably be a battleground state at some point like a decade or so down the road,” said Mike Noble, the chief of research with the polling firm OH Predictive Insights, which is based in Phoenix. “It’s mind-blowing that it came so quickly to be quite honest.”Political operatives in Ohio and Florida insist that their states could remain competitive if Democrats would invest in organizers and ads. But for presidential campaigns, the goal isn’t to flip states but to identify the easiest route to 270 electoral votes.David Pepper, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, acknowledged that the changed politics had created a national political dynamic that’s bad for Ohio but better for his party. “The fact that Ohio is less essential than it used to be is a good thing because it means there are other states that are now winnable that weren’t 10 years ago. Colorado and Virginia were Republican so you had to win Florida and Ohio,” he said, evoking the predecessor to the cable news interactive maps. “That’s why Tim Russert had them all over his white board.”Senator Raphael Warnock with the rapper Killer Mike at a campaign event on Monday.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesThe Warnock campaign visited Georgia Tech on Monday.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesThe country wasn’t always so dependent on such a small group of deciders. In the 1980s, presidential candidates competed across an average of 29 states. That number fell to 19 during the 2000s, according to data compiled by FairVote, a nonpartisan advocacy group that works on election practices. In 2020, there were just eight states where the margin of victory for either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump was under 5 percent.The shrinking map leaves one clear loser: The bulk of American voters. About 50 million Americans live in the six states poised to get most of the attention, giving about 15 percent of the country’s nearly 332 million people an outsize role in determining the next president.For nearly 11 million Georgians, the political attention showered on their state during the midterm elections won’t be gone for long. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why the Democrats’ biggest wins of the midterms weren’t in Washington DC

      by

      Why the Democrats’ biggest wins of the midterms weren’t in Washington DC Breaking Republican strangleholds over state capitols gives Democrats an advantage in the fight for voting, abortion and LGBTQ+ rightsWhile Democrats staved off a red wave in Washington during the midterm elections, the party’s most significant victories came far away from the US Capitol. They were in state legislatures across the country with consequences that will be felt for years to come.Over the last decade, Republicans have quietly amassed power in state capitols, investing in races for state legislatures that can be decided by just a few hundred votes. It’s an investment that has paid off wildly. Since state legislatures draw electoral districts in many places, Republicans have used that advantage to entrench their power, drawing district lines that further guaranteed their majorities. They have also used those majorities to pass measures that make it harder to vote, strip LGBTQ+ protections, loosen gun laws and restrict access to abortion.‘This movement was rejected’: Republican election deniers lose key state racesRead moreIn the midterms, however, Democrats flipped at least three state legislative chambers and held on to their majorities in several states where they were in jeopardy. The victories ended years of Democratic defeat and disappointment and caught even some Democrats off guard. It marked the first midterm election since at least 1934 in which the president’s party didn’t lose control of a single legislative chamber, according to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which focuses on state legislative races.“We went into this cycle very clear-eyed. Knowing it was a presidential midterm and frankly expecting to lose seats,” said Jessica Post, president of the DLCC. “Republicans had everything in their favor. By all accounts, this election should have been a landslide for the Republicans. Instead, their so-called red wave looks more like a puddle.”In Michigan, Democrats took control of both chambers of the legislature for the first time in nearly 40 years. Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, was also re-elected to a second term, giving the party complete control of state government in one of America’s most politically competitive states.“I felt pretty confident we were gonna get one chamber and be looking at potentially picking up the chamber in two years. But it was surprising for me that we flipped both houses,” said Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic Michigan state senator who worked on flipping state legislative seats.Democrats also flipped control of the Minnesota senate, giving them complete control of state government there. In Pennsylvania, ballots are still being counted in two razor-thin state house races that will determine control of the state house.They also prevented Republicans from gaining supermajorities in the Wisconsin and North Carolina legislature, an extremely significant development that will prevent GOP-controlled bodies from overriding vetoes from Democratic governors there. Democrats held their majorities in state legislative chambers in Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico.Cartogram of state legislatures by party control“We felt those goals were certainly long shots. Many thought they were unattainable,” said Daniel Squadron, a former New York State senator who co-founded the States Project, which spent $60m towards electing Democrats in state legislative races. “In every chamber, we’ve either met or exceeded our electoral goals.”Those victories could play an important role in ensuring a free and fair election in two years. In 2020, Donald Trump tried to lean on GOP state legislative majorities in key battlegrounds like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona to try to overturn the results. The Democratic wins could also offer a critical safeguard against the US supreme court, which could soon endorse a fringe legal theory, backed by Republicans, that says state legislatures have virtually unchecked power to set rules over federal elections.Democrats and allies pointed to a combination of factors behind the wins.There were more competitive maps in place in Michigan and Pennsylvania this cycle, replacing districts Republicans drew a decade ago. Concerns about abortion access and competitive statewide races also drove voters to the polls. Strong candidate recruitment allowed Democrats to connect with voters. And deep investments allowed Democratic candidates to get out on the campaign trail early and launch an offense against Republican opponents.In 2020, Democrats failed to flip any of the chambers targeted to try to get a seat at the table in the redistricting process. In 2010, amid a juggernaut GOP effort, Democrats lost control of 20 chambers in a single night. In the 2014 midterms, 11 chambers flipped to Republican control.“Democrats can, in fact, win at the state legislative level. When we invest our dollars appropriately. When we utilize evidence-based tactics, and when we have candidates who can meet voters where they are, we proved that this year,” said Adam Pritzker, another co-founder of the States Project. “State legislative politics is not the minor leagues.”‘We’re at risk’: the little-known races that could expand Republican powerRead moreRepublicans were massively outspent in state legislative races, Dee Duncan, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), wrote in a memo to donors last week. Four outside left-leaning groups alone spent $125m on the races, dwarfing the $30m the RSLC invested. Duncan noted that the groups, including the DLCC, the States Project and Forward Majority, spent more in three states – Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania – than the RSLC spent across the country.“This influx in funding drove significant spending disparities in each state that were hard to overcome,” he wrote. “In every state where we lost a chamber or have potential to lose a chamber (Pennsylvania), Republicans did not win a single statewide election.”Christina Polizzi, a DLCC spokesperson, disputed that the RSLC was outspent. “The RSLC has absolutely no credibility on this. They have a long history of selective memory and flat out lying about their spending numbers,” she said in a statement. “Although they have nothing to show for it, the reality is they outraised and outspent the DLCC this cycle while still being only a fraction of the overall GOP spending in the states. They can’t blame their losses on the money – they lost because Republicans have bad policies and flawed candidates that the American people didn’t support.”Republicans did earn a few key wins in state races. In North Carolina, they flipped partisan control of the state supreme court. And in Ohio, they won a seat being vacated by a retiring GOP member who had been a swing vote. Those majorities could allow Republicans in those states to pass more aggressively gerrymandered maps, as well as anti-abortion laws.Beyond local politicsIn Michigan, Kristen McDonald Rivet won one of the key state senate races that helped Democrats flip control of the chamber. From the moment she launched her campaign until just a few days before the election, she said, there were pundits who said she couldn’t win the seat, which borders the Saginaw Bay. Joe Biden narrowly carried the district by three points in 2020; McDonald Rivet wound up winning by six points.When she spoke with voters, McDonald Rivet would mention democracy and voting rights “all of these things that Democrats hold dear”, she said in an interview. But she also recognized the sense of economic unease in her district; families used to be able to work in a plant, raise their families and live “the Michigan dream to go to Disney World in the winter”. She and her husband have raised their six children in the district and her husband’s family has lived there for five generations.“It’s not about local politics. It was about people’s day-to-day. Local is not quite the right word,” she said. “I started a lot of my stump speeches with ‘you know politics doesn’t have to be this way.’ And it resonated, probably because I actually believe it.”Her campaign was also boosted by a strong party infrastructure, millions spent on media, and a massive grassroots effort. Her campaign knocked on 72,000 doors and had 7,500 individual donations, including hundreds of people in her district who had set up recurring donations, some for as little as $3.Democracy, poisoned: America’s elections are being attacked at every levelRead moreShe was aided by Michigan Democrats like McMorrow, a state senator who gained national attention after a viral speech earlier this year and raised more than $2m to her Pac to help Democrats running for state legislative seats. In 2018, when she was a first-time candidate, McMorrow remembered being brushed off by donors who were more interested in statewide and federal races. That money, now, she said, allowed Democrats to hire paid field organizers and start campaigning earlier than Republican counterparts.“I think people really get it. And I think we were able to really make the case to people to say in a year when the Dobbs decision came down, really highlighted how important state legislatures are in a very tangible way. Because this is an issue that’s coming back to the states,” she said.Brian Munroe, a Democrat, knocked on 10,000 doors on his way to flipping a state house seat in Bucks county, Pennsylvania, a competitive area outside Philadelphia. “I heard from a lot of people, Republican, Democrat, independent, pro-Trump, not pro-Trump,” he said, recalling many conversations about abortion. “Everybody was tired of the divisiveness. I’m even talking about people with the Let’s Go Brandon flag out front.”Munroe initially was met with some skepticism from big donors, but won them over by pointing out that the district had been redrawn to include a township where he served on the board of supervisors. “Taking a risk can pay off. Not taking a risk will never pay off,” he added. “If all you do is focus on keeping the seats that you have and you’re not in the majority, then you’re always going to be relegated in the minority. That changed to a degree this cycle.”In Wisconsin, Lori Palmeri, the mayor of Oshkosh, won a competitive race for the state assembly that blocked Republicans from gaining a supermajority in the legislature that would have allowed them to override any vetoes from Tony Evers, a Democrat who was elected to a second term.“One of the things I heard the most at the doors was folks were fed up with the political polarization,” she said. “They wanted to see their legislators showing up and doing that work … The message is really from the voters. They really are not going to tolerate one-party rule.”Inspiring long shotsDemocrats and allies hope that the success they saw in 2022 will lead more Democrats to take state legislative races seriously.“My great hope is that our party will really start to understand that everything that affects people’s daily lives, including voting rights and the certification of US presidential elections, happens in states with Democratic trifecta control,” said Post of the DLCC.In the 48 hours after election day, more than 500 people expressed interest in running for office, said Amanda Litman, the executive director of Run for Something, which focuses on recruiting people to run for office.“Inspiring wins in long shot races inspire more people to take on long-shot races. It’s especially true when the candidates in those are young people, women, people of color. It compounds on itself,” she said.TopicsUS politicsThe fight for democracyUS midterm elections 2022DemocratsMichiganMinnesotaPennsylvaniafeaturesReuse this content More