Tag Archives: North Carolina

2022 Elections — A First Glance

By tmess2 | Published January 30, 2021

The 2020 elections left both the House and the Senate closely divided.  And two years is a long time in politics.  But experience has taught politicians two, somewhat contradictory, things that will impact what can get done during the next two years.

The first, especially for the House of Representatives, is that the President’s party typically loses seats.  But the reason for this normal rule is that a new President has typically helped members of his party to flip seats.  As such, this might be less true for 2022 than in the past.  In 2020, the Democrats only won three new seats, and two were the results of North Carolina having to fix its extreme gerrymander.  And only a handful of Democratic incumbents won close races.  And the rule is less consistent for the Senate, in large part because the Senators up for election are not the ones who ran with the President in the most recent election but the ones who ran with the prior president six years earlier.  In other words, the President’s party tends to be more vulnerable in the Senate in the midterms of the second term than in the midterms of the first term.  But the likelihood that the President’s party will lose seats is an incentive to do as much as possible during the first two years.

The second is that one cause of the swing may be overreach — that voters are trying to check a President who is going further than the voters actually wanted.  This theory assumes that there are enough swing voters who really want centrist policies and that they switch sides frequently to keep either party from passing more “extreme” policies.  Polls do not really support this theory and there is an argument that, at least part of the mid-term problem, could be the failure to follow through on all of the promises leading to less enthusiasm with the base.  But this theory is a reason for taking things slowly and focusing on immediate necessities first and putting the “wish list” on hold until after the mid-terms. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Senate | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off on 2022 Elections — A First Glance

A recount primer

By tmess2 | Published November 6, 2020

We are now moving into the universe where aside from spinning fictional conspiracy theory, Donald Trump is, for all practical purposes, down to recounts to keep his slim hopes of avoiding an orange jump suit alive.

As with everything else about this election that we have talked about over the past three weeks, the basic rules for recounts are set by state law.  So looking at the states in which Trump is most likely to ask for a recount, here are the rules.

Arizona — In Arizona, the margin must be less than 0.1%.   Any such recount is automatic, and a candidate is not able to request a recount.  Assuming a final vote total of slightly under 4 million votes, the margin would have to slip under 4,000 to have a recount.  Apparently, in Arizona, the recount is done by rerunning the ballots through counting machines. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on A recount primer

Election Night Preview — Part 1 (6 PM to 8 PM EST)

By tmess2 | Published October 27, 2020

Election Night in the U.S. is always different from how things play out in most other countries.  The U.S. is one of a handful of countries that have more than two time zones.  And, in most of those other countries, all areas within the same time zone close at the same time.  Voting hours in these countries are set by federal law.  In the U.S., however, voting hours are set by state law.   And that creates a weird sequence of poll closing times.

In addition, poll closing times are, in some sense, tentative.  While you need to be in line to vote by the time that polls close, anybody in line to vote gets to vote.  For states that close in the early evening, long lines at closing time are nor unusual as there is not much of a window to vote after getting home from work resulting in many people attempting to vote after work still being in line when the polls cloase.  And there is always the possibility of an emergency order permitting certain precincts to stay open late to compensate for problems earlier in the day.  Even after polls close, many jurisdictions use a centralized counting location.   That means that there is a lag time between the polls closing and the ballots getting to the counting location.  In my county, the closest precincts are still only getting to the county seat about thirty minutes after polls close and the far edges of the county are getting there around an hour after the polls close.  As a result, it typically takes ninety minutes for my small (eighteen precinct) county to report all of the results.  Large urban counties can take three to four hours to report all of their election night results.  This delay in reporting (which is pretty much the same in most states) is one thing that traditionally makes it difficult to project result.  If the three largest counties in a state have only reported 10% of the vote while the rest of the state is 80% in, there is still a large number of votes that can change who wins a close race.

The other issue that will impact this election is the number of mail-in votes.  As we have previously discussed, every state has different rules for counting mail-in votes.  In most states, early in-person votes will be released around the same time (if not before) the election day votes, but mail-in votes will be reportedly differently in different states.  As such, with each state, the big questions will be:  1) is the reported vote just the early vote or also the election day vote; 2) if we have full early vote and partial election day vote, how much does the election day vote differ from the early vote; and 3) how much of the mail-in vote has been counted and how much may remain to be counted or still be “in the mail”?  The early count from a state may appear to be lopsided, but — without knowing the answers to these questions — it will be more difficult to determine if we have enough of the vote counted to know who is going to win.  In states that are used to large mail-in vote totals, it is not unusual to not know the winner of the closest race for a day or two after the election as we finally get enough mail-in votes counted. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast | Also tagged , , , , , , , , Comments Off on Election Night Preview — Part 1 (6 PM to 8 PM EST)

Cut Time

By tmess2 | Published September 5, 2020

A political party serves two fundamental purposes.

First, people form and join political parties to advance policy.  (Of course, there are disagreements on the exact priorities or the specific details of policy proposals.)  In fact, one of the biggest mistakes that the Framers made was not anticipating that, once there were elections for federal offices, the groups in New Jersey that favored rural farmers over “urban” merchants would unite with similar groups in Georgia (and vice versa for the groups that favored merchants) rather than stay isolated in their own states.  Simply put, if you want a single-payer health care system, you are more likely to get it by forming a large group with other supporters of that type of proposal than working on your own.

Second, the way that political parties try to advance policy is by getting their candidates elected to office.  You can’t pass a single-payer system if the opponents of single-payer have the majority in Congress or control the White House.  And political parties win elections by finding good candidates and raising and spending money to support those candidates.   Especially in the year before the election, money tends to be spent on creating tools (like voter databases and helping state parties) that are available to all candidates that run on the party’s ticket.  And at this point in time, with the exception of the last handful of state primaries, the parties have their candidates. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election, Money in Politics | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off on Cut Time

Delegate Math 2020 — Super Tuesday (Part 1 — Early States and Territories)

By tmess2 | Published February 29, 2020

Super Tuesday is always a hard day for delegate math.  There are fifteen contests ranging from a territorial caucus in American Samoa (which given the time gaps will actually be taking while it is still Monday in most of the United States) to the massive primary in California in which a final count will not be available for several weeks.  Every candidate still running (and this post is going live while we are still waiting for the results in South Carolina) can point to some contest in which they might win delegates.  Super Tuesday is also the day on which we will see if Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early caucuses and primaries worked.

As with the first four states in the “early” window,  these contests are complicated by the number of candidates running.  While the states differ from each other, in all of them, there is the question of how many candidates will reach the 15% threshold (either state-wide) or in a single district.  In Iowa (with the exception of the Second District in which only three candidates won delegates) every district and the state-wide results had four candidates break 15%.  In New Hampshire, in every district and state-wide, three candidates broke 15%.  In Nevada, one district had three viable candidates but the other districts and the state-wide results had only two viable candidates .  It seems likely that — in at least some districts and states — three or more candidates will reach that 15% threshold.  And multiple candidates reaching 15% will cause weird fractional issues.  Additionally, the possibility of some candidates getting between 10-13% could allow the viable candidates to gain more delegates than the minimum numbers discussed below.

Trying to do things chronologically, the first four contests to end (not necessarily the first four contests to report the results) are American Samoa, North Carolina, Virginia, and Vermont.  All of these contests close by 7:30 p.m. EST.  Part 2 will deal with the contests that close at 8 p.m. EST/7 p.m. CST,   Part 3 will deal with the states that close after 8 p.m. EST (excluding Texas and California).  Part 4 will deal with Texas and California. Continue Reading...

Posted in Delegates, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Delegate Math 2020 — Super Tuesday (Part 1 — Early States and Territories)

The Last Election of 2018

By tmess2 | Published February 3, 2019

When we last left North Carolina, the outgoing State Election Board had declined to certify the results in the Ninth Congressional District because of a concerted effort by the Republican candidate’s campaign to violate state election law related to the collection of absentee ballots.  However, before the Board could complete its investigation, the old Board (created under an unconstitutional statute enacted in 2016 by the Republican legislature and the outgoing Republican governor to reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor) expired by court order. 

After the Republicans delayed as long as possible (avoiding any interim Board), Governor Roy Cooper appointed a new Board this past week.  The new Board quickly organized in a telephonic meeting and intends to hold its first official meeting as soon as possible at which time they will schedule a hearing to determine whether to certify the results in the Ninth Congressional district or to set aside those results for fraud and schedule a revote in the race between Mark Harris and Dan McCready. 

At this point in time, we are probably looking at late February or early March before we know for sure what the State Election Board will decide. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives | Also tagged , , Comments Off on The Last Election of 2018

A Long December

By tmess2 | Published December 16, 2018

As we come to the end of another year, there are a lot of things happening. 

Let’s start with North Carolina and the Ninth District, the last of the House seats still up in the air.  It is unclear how much of the vote count has been impacted by the shenanigans.  There is substantial evidence showing that political operatives broke North Carolina law by getting involved in the collection of absentee ballots from non-relatives.  There is also evidence suggesting that these individuals may suggests that these operaves were selective in turning in the ballots that they received and may have altered other ballots (e.g., by casting votes in races that the voter left blank).  Since some states do allow non-relatives to collect absentee ballots, what is happening in North Carolina shows the need to have some anti-fraud measures in such voting.  Making it easy to vote is a good thing.  However, historically, we have known that most voter fraud is connected with mail-in or absentee voting and not with in-person voter-impersonation.    Of course, Republicans have been more concerned with stopping in-person fraud in ways that make it difficult to vote in person.  Meanwhile, they have uniformly been willing to relax the rules designed to assure that ballots received in the mail actually reflect the intent of the person who supposedly have cast them.  Going forward, Democrats — wanting to make it easy for people to vote — need to be sure that the rules include adequate protection to prevent con-artists from stealing and altering ballots before they get to the election office.

We have also seen the start of Democrats announcing that they are considering running for President.  Over the next three to six months, we will see more Democrats announce their campaigns; some of these candidates will decide to halt their campaigns before we reach July, but many of them will make the late Summer when we begin to have debates.  While the DNC does not need to finalize its debate plans yet, it does need to consider what the Republicans did wrong in 2016 (as well as what the Democrats did wrong in 2016).  The Republicans big problem was having too many candidates for a single debate.  The simple reality is that more candidates on the stage translates into less substance and more personal attacks and everyone agreeing with what they perceive as party orthodoxy.  On the other hand, there is no rational method for choosing which candidates make the debate.  The Republican tentative solution was what many called the JV or kiddie-table debate in which polls were used to separate the top candidates from the others.  However, after the first four or five candidates, the gap between the remaining candidates will often be less than the standard margin of error in most polls.  (In other words, the difference is close enough that the real standing of the candidates is unclear.)  Offering my humble suggestions, the following makes sense to me:  1) No more than six or seven candidates on the stage at a time (even that is probably too many, but it allows each candidate to have a semi-substantive response to each question); 2) all parts of the debate need to be in prime time (see next suggestion below) even if that means short breaks between the parts in which candidates are rushed on and off the stage with no opportunity to schmooze with the audience for those in the earlier parts; and 3) the candidates in part one or part two (or part three if there are even more candidates) should be randomly suggested and there should be a limit on the number of consecutive times that a candidate can be in any part (in other words, no part is clearly the “Not Ready for Prime Time” debate and no candidate is consistently going in the early debate or the late debate).  Continue Reading...

Posted in Democratic Party, Elections, House of Representatives, Politics | Also tagged , , , , , , , , Comments Off on A Long December

2018 Mid-term Election Preview — Atlantic South

By tmess2 | Published October 24, 2018

There is an old joke about Pennsylvania that (at least politically) it is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle.  The same joke, in many ways, can be made about the five southern states that border the Atlantic Coast, particularly Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.  All three states are divided between regions that very much resemble the Democratic areas in the Northeast and Pacific Coast, and regions that are very much still the rural South.  These divisions have made all three states very purplish at the state level and have made the drawing of district lines very crucial to the race for Congress.

Starting with Virginia, Tim Kaine has a solid lead against the Confederate Republican nominee Corey Stewart.   The real battle in Virginia will be for House seats.  Democrats currently hold four seats (out of eleven seats).  Democrats are currently looking at taking anywhere between one and four seats.  The key to Democratic growth in Virginia has been the D.C. suburbs and the Republican disrespect for any type of expertise.   These districts are a model of how Trump is driving moderate Republicans to the Democratic Party.

In North Carolina, Republicans in the state legislature have stated that the current map was drawn as it is (a 10-3 Republican advantage) because it was impossible to draw a map that would have allowed the Republicans to reliably win eleven seats.  While the local federal court struck down the current map less than two months ago, there was not enough time to redraw the lines for this year (and the Supreme Court would probably have intervened if the judges had tried).  Fighting against this stacked deck, the Democrats have a decent shot at one seat due to Republican divisions in that district (the incumbent lost in the Republican primary).  There are two other districts were, with good results, the Democrats might be able to pick up the seat.  Like Virginia, North Carolina is another state where the hostility of the Republican Party to basic science is driving college educated votes associated with is research corridor into the Democratic Party.

South Carolina is the one state in this region that is still reliably Republican.  The current Republican governor is likely to win re-election.  The Republicans are likely to keep all six seats that they currently hold, although Democrats do have an outside chance to take the First  District (where Mark Sanford lost in the primary).

In Georgia, the big race is for Governor where Secretary of State Brian Kemp has engaged in tactics that would make most dictators blush.  He was caught over this weekend commenting that, if Democrats actually vote, he would have trouble winning.  He has tried to defend his actions trying to impose barriers to people voting by comparing it to ads trying to persuade Republicans not to support him.   A key factor in this race is that Georgia requires an actual majority in the general election.  Georgia is the only state that uses a true run-off in its general election.  (Other states use variations on the jungle primary.)  There is a very good chance that third party candidates will win enough votes to force a run-off.  Like in South Carolina, the most likely result in the Congressional races is the status quo.  There is an outside chance that Democrats could force run-off in the Sixth and Seventh Districts.

Florida is the big state in the region — both in terms of the raw number of seats and in the potential for change.  It would be easy to divide Florida into two states — one solidly Republican and one solidly Democratic — by drawing an east-west line somewhere down the middle of the state.  This year, it looks like Democrats have narrow leads in the race for Governor (currently held by Republican health care crook and Senate candidate Rick Scott) and in the race for U.S. Senate.  Of course, the state is still recovering from the recent hurricane which could impact turnout making the polls less reliable than normal.  As in many other purple states in which Republicans controlled redistricting, the U.S. House delegation is somewhat lopsided with Republicans holding a 16-11 advantage currently.  However, the very features that allow the Republicans to win those seats when the state-wide vote is close to 50-50 make them vulnerable to a blue wave.  The Democrats should gain at least one seat although anything between the status quo and a seven seat gain is within the realm of possibility.

There are several major ballot issues on the ballot.  In Florida, you have issues that could favor both parties.  On the one hand, Florida could pass a constitutional amendment relaxing its current very strict restrictions on ex-felons voting and another amendment that bars offshore drilling.  On the other hand, Florida could pass amendments requiring a super-majority for tax increases and prohibiting courts from deferring to administrative agencies.

In North Carolina, the Republican legislature has stacked the ballot with provisions designed to reduce the power of the governor and other conservative wish list proposals including:  a right to fish and hunt, a cap on the maximum income tax, requiring photo ID to vote, placing the power to appoint local election officials in the legislature, and giving the legislature a role in judicial appointments.

Looking at the region as a whole, the election’s reflect the power of redistricting.  Democrats could get the majority state-wide in three or four of the states and yet only gain three seats.  On the other hand, with a very good night, Democrats could gain seventeen seats.  Turnout will be key.

 

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on 2018 Mid-term Election Preview — Atlantic South

Latest Legal News on Gerrymandering

By tmess2 | Published September 1, 2018

As readers may recall, back in June, the United States Supreme Court evaded ruling on the issue of partisan gerrymandering in three cases.  In particular, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the merits in a case out of Wisconsin based on a question of “standing” (who can bring a case), declined to review a case out of Maryland because the appeal was from a ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction rather than a final judgment, and opted to send a case from North Carolina back to the trial court to consider whether the other two rulings had any impact on the trial court’s ruling.  Earlier this week, a three-judge panel for the Middle District of North Carolina completed the reconsideration ordered by the United States Supreme Court and once again struck down the North Carolina congressional district map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

From the beginning, the outcome in North Carolina has mostly been about whether there is a way to make a partisan gerrymandering claim.  At the time that the legislature was enacting the current maps, the Republicans in North Carolina boasted that they drew the map to lock in a 10-3 advantage only because they could not find a way to draw a map that gave them an 11-2 advantage.  As detailed in the opinion, the redistricting committee only considered partisan data (after an earlier map had been struck down by the courts as a racial gerrymander, the goals of the committee expressly included drawing a 10-3 map, and the maps reflected lines that either split Democratic areas between Republican districts (cracking to avoid potential that including entire area might make a single district competitive) or put Democratic areas intact into districts that were already overwhelmingly Democrat (packing to avoid such voters having any influence in a competitive district).  Once the panel decided that  this summer’s opinions implicitly recognized that there could be a partisan gerrymandering claim, it was easy to find on multiple grounds that these maps were unconstitutional.

However, June’s decision to send this case back to the trial court created a problem with the trial court imposing a remedy.  As of Monday, when this decision came down, there were only ten weeks left until the November election.  The decision did leave open the possibility that the trial court would try to craft a remedy that could take effect in 2018 and gave the parties until Friday to make suggestions about how to proceed.   However, according to the latest reports, the plaintiffs (which include the North Carolina Democratic Party) conceded in their suggestions that there was no practical solution that could be completed in time to avoid disrupting the November elections.  (Additionally, if the trial court had tried to impose a remedy, the legislature could have asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay.  Depending on how long it took to craft a remedy, it is possible that Judge Kavanaugh would already be sitting as Justice Kavanaugh giving five votes for a stay.  Even if the confirmation process was not yet complete, there is a tradition of a “courtesy” fifth vote for a stay in cases that are divided 4-4. )

Based on Friday’s suggestions, it is likely that the trial court would order some type of process to draw new maps for 2020 (just in time for the process to start over).  And, it is likely that the legislature will appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court — either just in time for an April 2019 argument or (more likely) late enough to get an October or November 2019 argument — meaning no decision until May or June 2020 at which point the case might be sent back on some minor flaw to avoid any need to resolve this issue before redistricting begins again in 2021.

Posted in Elections, Judicial | Also tagged Comments Off on Latest Legal News on Gerrymandering

Election Night 2016 — What to Look for (Part Two)

By tmess2 | Published November 6, 2016

VotingBoothImage_0As with many other details of election law, each state gets to choose their voting hours on election day.  Thus, unlike a place like the United Kingdom where all polls close at the same time and when results are announced is a matter of how long it takes to count the vote, there is a slow progression across the country as the different states close.  A complicating factor is that some states are split down the middle by time zones.  In most of the states with multiple time zones, the polls close based on the local time (i.e. the polls in the eastern part of the state close an hour earlier than the polls in the western part of the state) rather than all polls in the state closing simultaneously.  Another complicating factor is that all states only require that you be in line to vote at the time that the polls close; so, in larger precincts, there can be a long line delaying the report of votes from that precinct.  As noted in Part One,  part of the projection process is looking at what precincts are still outstanding.  In a close state, the long lines at urban precincts (which are likely to favor Democrats) can make it hard to figure how strong the Democratic vote in a state is for an extended period.

In terms of interest, not every state is the same.   A lot of states and districts are considered “safe” for President or Senate or Governor or U.S. Representative.  Of course, if something surprising happens in those areas, it could be a sign of a wave developing, but most of the attention will be focused on the “battleground” areas that will decide a close election.  What follows in the rest of this part and the rest of this series is a review in chronological order of closing time (using Eastern Standard Time) at what to look for as the evening progresses.

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Election Night 2016 — What to Look for (Part Two)