Congressman Billybob's say-so

HIGHLANDS, N.C., Nov. 21 (UPI) -- (Introducing a new commentary feature, "Congressman Billybob says," written by lawyer John Armor, commenting on political issues of the day. This week's column examines Republican gains in U.S. state legislatures.)

This here's the 325th Report ta the Folks Back Home from the (More er Less) Honorable Billybob, cyberCongressman from Western Carolina.

I know a lotta state legislators, n over the las three decades I's spent a lotta time with em at national conventions, n on occasions when I's testified afore em azza eggspert in constitutional law.

But the big fact bout em is the newly-established majority ov Republicans inna state legislatures across the nation.

Since this requires more'n a bit ov number crunchin, I'll turn this over ta ma able assistant, John Armor, Esq.

I've been involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council for almost the whole 30 years of its existence. For those not familiar with ALEC, it is the largest membership organization of state legislators. It has Republican, Democrat and independent members. The philosophy of ALEC is Jeffersonian -- limited and local government, federalism, and free markets. That organization supplied the raw data about the 7,382 legislative positions in which Republicans have now claimed a majority.

Since state legislators are the bread and butter of ALEC, it is able to report accurately on the status of members in the 49 lower houses and 50 state senates in the nation. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, with only a Senate.)

I ran the subject of majorities among state legislators through a "GoogleNews" search. Only a dozen of the hundreds of election articles mentioned the mantra of "Republican gains of about 200 seats in state legislatures" giving them a "national majority." Only three articles attempted to give details of this sea change, and all three got it wrong, in part.

A few legislators have switched their party alignment, declaring themselves Republicans after being elected as Democrats. In the Georgia Senate, four such changes gave the Republicans control of that body. The Georgia Democrats have asked two of those "changelings" to refund money given for their campaigns. They probably should refund that money, immediately after Sen. Jim Jeffords refunds the Republican money that got him elected, before he changed sides to vote with the Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

Here are the gross results in state legislative races, which took place in 46 states. (The remaining states will have their elections next year.) Counting the party switches, Republicans hold 3,669 seats; Democrats hold 3,643; independents hold 66 seats; third parties hold 4 seats. One Florida House seat is subject to a recount. Two Indiana House seats are subject to recount; if either of those races change from Democrat to Republican, Indiana will move from a "split" state to Republican control. In four states the results are not certified as final, but they should not change from what is reported here.

More important than the gross numbers is the effect on party control, house by house. In 20 states, Republicans control both houses. In 17 states, Democrats control both houses. In nine states, party control is split between the two houses (pending the Indiana recounts). In one state, Nebraska, all members of its unicameral Senate are elected as independents. Two states are special cases: in Oregon the Republicans control the House, but the Senate is tied. In New Jersey the Democrats control the House, but the Senate is tied.

So, by either measure, gross numbers of seats held or number of legislative houses controlled, the Republicans have become the dominant party at this level for the first time since 1932 in the depths of the Great Depression. The national press has reported to a fare-thee-well the fact that the Republicans now control the White House, the House, the Senate, and a majority of the governorships. But the last step in this hat trick plus two, control of the state legislatures, has been below the radar. Few news outlets have even reported it. None have gotten the numbers correct.

Why are the state legislators important? One part of the story has gone unreported: State legislators are responsible for as much domestic spending of taxpayers' dollars as the Congress. National defense has no parallel at the state level. But all other functions of government are found at both the national and state level. Subtracting national defense from the federal budget, the result is that state and local spending is roughly equal to federal spending. So, greater attention should be paid to the elections of the state legislators who control state spending directly, and local spending indirectly through their supervision of all local governments.

There is a second reason why greater attention should be paid to these state legislators' elections. Except for members of the California Senate, state legislators run in districts that are smaller than, sometimes a tiny fraction of, the districts for members of Congress. These are mostly "shoe leather" districts, where candidates with energy and good ideas can win with relatively little campaign funding. As a result, it is far easier for voters to express their intentions through party changes among elected state officials than federal ones. The extreme example is New Hampshire, with 400 members in its House so their districts are about 3,000 people each, compared to the House of Representatives with districts of about 639,000.

In short, the many changes at the state legislative level are a better barometer of public opinion than the relatively few changes at the federal or statewide level, since a larger proportion of such "high profile" races were never competitive from the get-go.

And there is a sound reason why the slight majority now held by the Republicans at the state legislative level bodes well for that party in the future. With minor exceptions, the Republicans are a fairly cohesive party, with similar ideas on lower taxes, less government regulation, and conservative positions on "social" issues. The Democratic Party, however, is schizophrenic on such issues.

Party labels for Democrats can be highly deceptive. "San Francisco Democrats" are nearly the polar opposite of "South Carolina Democrats." The latter tend to be Blue Dog Democrats, who bear the label "Democrat" but vote "Republican" on taxes, spending, and social issues. The national press has reported fairly well the voting habits of Blue Dog Democrats like Sens. John Breaux of Louisiana and Zell Miller of Georgia. The voting habits of the Blue Dogs caused (soon-to-be-former) Majority Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, to bottle up both bills and nominations to prevent them from coming to the floor. He knew that despite their (now-lost) majority of Senators, the Democrats would have lost such floor votes.

The national press has not noticed that the same phenomenon applies even more in state legislatures. There are roughly 470 such Blue Dog Democrats currently in state legislatures mostly in the Deep South. So from an operating standpoint, the Republicans can easily garner the votes for "Republican" issues in a majority of the legislatures across the nation. In most cases, the floor votes will not even be close on issues such as lower taxes, less regulation, welfare reform, etc.

This is important not just for who will get elected in future elections, but for what policies the federal government will adopt in the future. Recall that the highly successful welfare reform at the federal level did not begin in Congress. It began in successful welfare reforms instituted in three states.

The states served as "legislative laboratories" as Justice Brandeis observed 70 years ago, and as the Framers of the Constitution intended two centuries years ago. The next major issue that will percolate from the state level to the federal one will be massive reform in public education. And that, too, will be accomplished over the dead political bodies of the now-minority Democratic leaders in Congress.

The final reason why this grossly under-reported state story is important lies in future federal elections. Historically, the two greatest sources of future presidents of the United States are governors and senators. Both governors and senators usually begin their careers as state legislators.

The political food chain is inexorable. Successful state house members become state senators. Successful state senators become members of the House of Representatives. Successful House members become senators or governors. And at that point, 99.44 percent of them privately dream of becoming president.

I call this The Dog-Catcher Rule: The 250,000 or so Americans who run for public office every year are actually running for only two offices, senator or president. A citizen first elected as dog catcher in Dover, Del., hopes in his/her heart of hearts to become a senator. And senators hope to become president.

In short, the stunning win by the Republicans in the state legislatures means that they now have a full bench. They will have more and better candidates to call on in the congressional races of 2004 and 2006 than will the Democrats. The Republican successes at the beginning of the political food chain lead to the conclusion that they will increase their gains in the House and Senate in the federal elections to come, and will solidify their position as the new majority party throughout the United States.

If the mainstream media would pay more attention to the entire political spectrum, rather than merely the high-visibility races at the statewide and federal level, they would see this massive and permanent change on the horizon. But they don't; and therefore they can't.

A Final Word on Predictions: In September in Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries, I predicted the Republicans would gain "5 to 7 seats in the House" and "1 to 3 seats in the Senate." On national radio, "American Breakfast" on Nov. 1, I narrowed that to "5 in the House" and "2 in the Senate." As this is written, the Republican gains are exactly 5 and 2, but they may gain one more in the Senate (Louisiana) and two more in the House (Colorado 7, Hawaii 2). Not bad analysis for a country lawyer who lives half a mile from the nearest paved road.

(About the Author: Congressman Billybob is fictitious, but prolific, on the Internet -- the invention of John Armor, who writes books and practices law in the U.S. Supreme Court. Comments and criticisms are welcome at CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net).

Excellent, Excellent, EXCELLENT article on a subject that OUGHT to have been covered--but wasn't--by George Will.

Wish someone could get this in front of Rush Limbaugh, and have him read it, or at least outline it in one of his monologues. This is red meat for the troops as we gird our loins for the next election cycle.

Billybob --

the "yoopi"?

Are yew done gone citified on us'ns? :)

Will you still find the time to "slum" among us "common folk" on Free Republic?

Congrats on your byline!

BTTT

I see Congrats are in order. And your right 100% right! (Not bad for a country lawyer who lives half a mile from the nearest paved road )

Why are the state legislators important?

The redistricting that follows the census every ten years is very serious business.

This is a very good article.
I have always enjoyed reading comments from the (more or less) Honorable One.

I forget who does this song but it popped into mind.

Now that we found love, what are we going to doooo, with it ?

About the Author: Congressman Billybob is fictitious, but prolific, on the Internet...

LIES!! Dang it, y'r Excellency, this here Armor feller is hornin' in on yore action, callin' you "fictitious." I ain't sure what that means exactly but I think it's one o' them back-East sexual thangs like Clinton did with that girl looked jest like Lonnie Jean over in the trailer park. Me 'n' Festus gonna git us a little trawlin' line from his bass boat 'n' have us and this here "Armor" feller a little necktie party, betcher socks...

I cut my eye teeth on FreeRepublic, debating and analyzing issues with sharp people who know their facts. I would not have gotten this column assignment without the skills I have necessarily learned, here on FreeRepublic.
So FReeping is not "slumning" to me. It is a combination of doing my homework, having fun, and slamming the enemy who have it coming, "Big time." It doesn't get any better than that.

Billybob

UPI made me say that. I know Billybob ain't fictitious. You know Billybob ain't fictitious. But UPI wanted a birth certificate, drivers license, or some such. I couldn't get them to understand that two people can get on perfectly well in one body, as long as they both like the same brand of Scotch.

Billybob (er, John, if'n y'all prefer)

Thang Q, ma friend.

And ta alla t'others what made kind comments, I offers these two lines from A.A. Milne:

"Bad King John stood dumbly there,
Blushing beneath his crown."

Billybob

Wow.

UPI.

Like, try to remember who yer friends were now that you are one of them famous journalistic columnists. (and don't try to say that you'd dunfergot!

Keep it up, John!

Pookie & ME

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.