Maryland Democrats "Provide" Weak Argument Against Redistricting Petition

The full text of the Maryland Democratic Party's legal challenge to the successful petition effort to place the state's egregiously gerrymandered congressional map has been filed and is available on-line.

The meat of the legal arguments appears in Section V starting at paragraph 31. The first argument is against the petition process as employed by MDPetitions.com - an innovative website that allows voters to download petitions with information from voter registration records already populated on the form. This is an important step because Maryland laws makes it very easy for the state Board of Elections to reject petitions over missing middle initials, missing zip codes, or other common errors.

The MDpetitions.com process minimizes the possibility of errors. That process is the primary bases for the Maryland Democratic Party's legal objection (text from the legal filing presented in red:

34. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law Art. § 6-203(a) provides that, to sign a petition, "an individual shall," in addition to signing the individual's name, "include the following information, printed or typed, in the spaces provided: (i) the signer's name as it was signed; (ii) the signer's address; (iii) the date of signing; and (iv) other information required by regulations adopted by the State Board." The statute this makes clear that the individual signer must print in her name and address next to her signature.

35. That requirement is also set forth in the State Board's regulation, COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B), which provides that when signing the signature page, "each signer shall . .. (2) Provide the following information to be printed or typed in the appropriate spaces: (a) Date of signing, (b) Signer's name as it was signed, and (c) Current residence address, including house number, street name, apartment number (if applicable), town and ZIP code" (emphasis added).

36. On the "Pre-Filled Petition" forms generated by MdPetitionis.com, the signer has not, as required by section 6-203(a) "included" her printed name and address, nor has the signer "provided" that information as required by COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B). Rather, the information has been "included" and "provided" by a computer program created and operated by the petition sponsors, MDPetitions.com, through the Internet.

Essentially the Democrats' arguments comes down to the meaning of the word "provide." They argue that petition signers who used MDPetitions.com to download their petitions did not provide the necessary information - rather MDPetitions.com did. This is a poor argument and rests on a very specific and inappropriate understanding of the word "provide." The Democrats clearly argue that a petitioner can only provide the required information if they personally type or hand write it. But a full reading of Maryland election law concerning petitions makes rather clear that provide actually means - a petitioner must provide the needed information to the appropriate election authority and the information is to be contained in the petition document.

So, when a person goes to MDPetitions.com and enters their information and downloads a petition with much of their information already filled in they are simply taking the steps necessary to provide the proper election authority with the required information. By printing and signing the form the petitioner has provided the information.

In a subsequent paragraph, Democrats claim the MDPetitions.com process is equivalent to providing a pre-filled petition,

38. That such "Pre-Filled Petitions" violate the requirements of state law even as interpreted by the State Board itself is confirmed by the current version of the State Board's Petition Signature Gathering "Frequently Asked Questions," posted on the State Board's website during 20 II, which stated:

"Can a petition sponsor pre-print signatures pages with voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voters need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth, and date of signing?

No."

39. The current updated version of those Petition Signature Gathering "Frequently Asked Question," posted on the State Board's website as of the date hereof, similarly states:

"Can a petition sponsor use a 'walking list' containing all registered voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voter need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing?

No."

The "Pre-Filled Petition" form constitutes precisely such a "walking list." If a voter wanted to sign the pre-filled petitions generated by MdPetitions.com, the voter would "need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing."

Again, the Democratic Party's argument is a bit too narrow here. A petition downloaded from MDPetitions.com is not precisely the same as a "walking list" or a "pre-filled petition" as discussed on the State Board of Elections FAQ. MDPetitions.com does not pre-print signatures pages with voters' names and addresses. Rather the person downloading and signing the petition prints the form after accessing it using their voter registration information.

Likewise, MDPetitions.com does not provide a 'walking list' containing all registered voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voter need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing? Again, the actual petition signator must access and download the form that they then sign and submit. In both the case of a walking list and pre-filled petition the signer is a passive participant at every stage accept signing the form. The MDPetitions.com process requires that the signer actively initiate the process - there is a clear difference.

Democrats then turn to the "fraud" argument:

40. There are sound policy reasons for requiring, as the statute and regulations clearly do, the  petition signer to fill in his or her own information on the form, rather than allowing that information to be filled in by someone else. Anyone-including someone other than the voter-using the MDPetitions.com website who knows the name, zip code and birth date of any Maryland voter could have the website generate a "Pre-Filled Petition Form" with that voter's information pre-printed, both in the signing block and the circulator's affidavit. The user (who is not the voter) could then print out the form, sign the voter's name in the signature space and in the circulator's affidavit and mail the form to MDPetitions.com for submission to the Secretary of State and State Board.

41. In the situation described in the preceding paragraph, there is absolutely no procedure or step in the statute, regulations or State Board practice that could detect the fraud. Nothing in the statute or regulations requires the local boards or State Board to check the signature of the person purportedly signing against the voter registration records, and it is the practice of the local boards and State Board not to do so.

The Democrats' argument here being that the MDPetitions.com has made petition fraud almost as easy as vote fraud - given that it would still be a bit easier to vote as someone else in Maryland than to download a petition pretending to be someone else.

In one of the most infuriating arguments put forth by the Maryland Democratic Party, they argue that no person may be a witness to her or his own signature.

44. Article XVI, section 4 of the Maryland Constitution provides that, "There shall be attached to each paper of signatures filed with a petition an affidavit of the person procuring those signatures that the signatures were affixed in his presence that, based upon the person's best knowledge and belief, every signature on the paper is genuine and bona fide .... "

45. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-204(a) requires that "Each signature page shall contain an affidavit made and executed by the individual in whose presence all of the signatures on that page were affixed and who observed each of those signatures being affixed." Section 6204(b) provides that, "The affidavit shall contain the statements, required by regulation, designed to assure the validity of the signatures and the fairness of the petition process."

46. The State Board's regulations, COMAR § 33.06.03.08, provides that the circulator's affidavit "shall state that ... (3) The circulator personally observed each signer as the page was signed; and (4) To the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief, all (a) signatures on the petition are genuine, and (b) Signers are registered voters in the State."

47. The manifest purpose of the requirements set forth in Md. Constitution Art. XVI, § 4 and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 6-204(a) and (b) is to help prevent fraud by having an individual witness persons signing the petition and having that individual-the circulator swear that the person who signed the petition actually tilled in her own information and signed her own name in the presence of the circulator. That purpose is utterly defeated by allowing a circulator to attest to his or her own signature.

48. Permitting a circulator to attest to his or her own signature is contrary to the plain language ofMd Const. Art. XVI, § 4 and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-204(a) that the signature be affixed "in the presence of the" circulator and that the circulator "personally observe" each signer as the page was signed. No person can serve as a witness to his or her own actions.

49. Nevertheless, the State Board counted as valid a number of signatures of persons who attested to their own signature as the circulator. Those signatures are invalid as a matter of law.

So, according the Democrats' argument, you can only submit your signature on a petition if someone else was circulating the petition. According to them, if you were the sole signatore too bad. If you were the circulator and signed your own petition in addition to other voters - too bad - your signature should be tossed.

The actual section of state law reads (in purple):

§ 6-204. Circulators; affidavit of the circulator.

(a) In general. — Each signature page shall contain an affidavit made and executed by the individual in whose presence all of the signatures on that page were affixed and who observed each of those signatures being affixed.
(b) Requirements. — The affidavit shall contain the statements, required by regulation, designed to assure the validity of the signatures and the fairness of the petition process.
(c) Age of circulator. —A circulator must be at least 18 years old at the time any of the signatures covered by the affidavit are affixed. (An. Code 1957, art.33, § 6-204; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4.)

Nowhere does this indicate that a person cannot be witness to their own signature. In fact, Article XVI, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution reads:

SEC. 4. A petition may consist of several papers, but each paper shall contain the full text, or an accurate summary approved by the Attorney General, of the Act or part of Act petitioned. There shall be attached to each paper of signatures filed with a petition an affidavit of the person procuring those signatures that the signatures were affixed in his presence and that, based upon the person's best knowledge and belief, every signature on the paper is genuine and bona fide and that the signers are registered voters at the address set opposite or below their names. The General Assembly shall prescribe by law the form of the petition, the manner for verifying its authenticity, and other administrative procedures which facilitate the petition process and which are not in conflict with this Article (amended by Chapter 548, Acts of 1976, ratified Nov. 2, 1976; Chapter 849, Acts of 1982, ratified Nov. 2, 1982).

Again, there is no suggestion that the person procuring the signatures cannot as well be a signator. To suggest that state law prohibits a person from being the sole signator on a petition is to deny the very right to petition as provided by the state Constitution.

Finally, in paragraphs 50-65 Democrats resort to the Sauerbrey argument. They argue based "On information and belief" - and one can assume it is more the latter than the former that the state Board of Elections improperly accepted as valid petitions where the signator's printed name and signature were not a perfect match or where there was a discrepancy with the signature matching the voter registration information. Also based "On information and belief" they argue some addresses were not provided in a matter consistent with state law. They further argue some contained dates that were not in the proper format and that some signatures were simply fraudulent. In paragraph 62 they simply declare some some signatures are null and void because they believe the same person signed for more than one person. Having made that declaration, they then make the logical next step - if indeed one person signed for two people then the circulator's affidavit of authenticity must be null and void as well, meaning every signature on the submitted petition should be tossed.

In 1994, Republican Ellen Sauerbrey lost the gubernatorial election to Parris Glendening by a scant 5,993 votes. Almost immediately Sauerbrey contended massive vote fraud - one assumes based "on information and belief." Sauerbrey acted as if she was the governor-elect even attending a meeting of the National Governors Association held weeks after the election. Her lawsuit and allegations of massive vote fraud went nowhere. Her refusal to accept the outcome of the election destroyed her reputation and made her a punchline in Maryland politics.

By law, the state Board of Elections is tasked with validating signatures on petitions for referenda. They check for correct addresses, correct dates, matching signatures. The Board of Elections determined that roughly 10% of the signatures submitted were invalid - but that  59,201 signatures were accepted by the board - roughly 4,000 more than the 55,736 needed to put the map on the ballot for a referendum. Maryland Democrats' are now claiming the Board of Elections did not do it's job.

In all, I find the arguments put forth by the Maryland Democratic Party to be very weak. That they had to resort to parsing the meaning of "provide" or claiming that a person could not be the sole signator on a petition is evidence of the weak case. The claims of fraud... well they sound like the same unsubstantiated fraud claims the GOP has used in other states to justify voter ID laws. One hopes a judge will simply dismiss the case. Either way, the legal challenge does great damage to the credibility of the Maryland Democratic Party. The congressional map at the center of the petition drive is itself an insult to the voters of the state. As argued by the editors of the Washington Post:

"The map, drafted under Mr. O’Malley’s watchful eye, mocks the idea that voting districts should be compact or easily navigable. The eight districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has been sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble studies in cubism... Federal officials or the courts will ultimately judge whether Mr. O’Malley’s plan is illegal under the Voting Rights Act. The broader question is whether it promotes fair and rational democracy. Anyone looking at the map can answer that one."

Denied the right to fair representation under the map adopted by the General Assembly and signed by the governor voters exercised the only option they had to prevent the partisan power grab represented by the map - the right to petition. State Democrats now want to deny that right as well.

No one disputes that this kind of brazen partisan gerrymandering is employed by Republicans and Democrats. These maps undermine the concept of representative Democracy and do harm to the nation. Not all voters enjoy the same rights as do Marylanders to challenge the map via petition and referendum. If Marylanders stand up against this abuse of process and reject the map, it may be just the push needed to convince Congress to impose on all states a non-partisan process for redistricting.

One can only hope the Democratic Party's legal challenge is dismissed and that the people will be heard.

The Garagiola Loss and the Turmoil in the Maryland Democratic Party

4/9/2012: As a quick update - any doubt about the present dysfunctional state of the Maryland Democratic party should be put to rest by looking to the mess that is the final day of the 2012 legislative session. Seeing conference committees or vote-oramas on the final day is neither new nor a sign of chaos but seeing the House Ways and Means committee meeting to discuss gambling in PG county INSTEAD of the two chambers reconciling the budget is a sign of chaos. Two party competition has a way of focusing parties....

Original Post:
Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola's defeat in the MD-6 legislative primary will have reverberations felt well beyond the district. In many ways, the Garagiola defeat is a sign of hard times ahead for the Maryland Democratic party. First, let's address the Garagiola loss. Garagiola is a powerful member of the state Senate and he enjoyed the backing of most of the Democratic party establishment in the state. Senate President Mike Miller drew the district for Garagiola and Steny Hoyer backed Garagiola in the primary. John Delaney was a novice politician running in a Democratic primary on a platform of fiscal conservatism. Gargiola had the backing of the unions and Moveon.org. By all accounts, Garagiola should have won a closed Democratic primary. So why did he lose? Because Maryland's Democratic party is quite different from most other state Democratic parties.

Nationally, the Republican and Democratic parties have sorted rather neatly into two ideologically homogeneous parties. The Democrats have become the home of political liberals and the Republicans are home to conservatives. More moderate voters either loosely associate with one party or the other or eschew both. The ideological sorting is especially evident among elected officials and it began in earnest at the end of the 1960s.

But something odd happened in the Free State. In many respects the great American ideological realignment passed Maryland by. Maryland remains home to a species long thought extinct by many a political observer - the conservative Democrat. They defeated Senator Millard Tydings in 1950 and his son Joseph in 1970. They delivered the state to George Wallace in the 1972 primary. They nominated perennial candidate George Mahoney for Senator in 1952 and again for Governor in 1966 - only to see him lose both times to a moderate Republican. They nearly helped elect Ellen Sauerbrey in 1994 and embarrassed Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in the 2002 Democratic primary (Fustero who?) and in the general elected Republican Bob Ehrlich. They elected John Delaney on Tuesday night.

Democrats have long enjoyed a voter registration advantage in the state, though it has declined. In 1966 Democrats claimed 72% of the electorate, that fell to 67% in 1986, and 56% today. Republicans were 26% in 1966 and remain 27% today. Now the growing number of independent voters tend to vote Republican - suggesting they came from among the Democrats' once large conservative ranks, but conservative Democrats remain and are crucial to the party's dominance in the state Assembly. Conservative Democrats help send Kevin Kelly, John Donoghue, Johnny Wood Jr., John Bohanan, Roy Dyson, Jim Brochin, Ronald Young, John Astle, Jim Mathias and others to the Assembly from districts that could as easily elect Republicans.

The Democrats' success in Maryland has stemmed from the party's ability to maintain a balance between the interests of more rural southern Democrats an urban and suburban liberals and minority voters. For decades the party has done this well. Contrary to the claims of many Republicans, "the Peoples Republic of Maryland" has never been the overtaxed, over-regulated, business hating environment they claim. Rather Maryland's lawmakers have often found a middle ground. The balancing act has kept liberals happy and prevented conservative Democrats from casting, or defending, votes on many divisive issues. When conservative Democrats have considered a revolt, considered joining with minority Republicans, The House Speaker and Senate President could keep them in line via the power they enjoy to reward or punish.

The Assembly leadership is quite powerful in Maryland. They control committee assignments, they control access to the floor and the calendar. If you cross them they can harm your career and sideline your initiatives. Please them and they can reward you... but there are growing signs that there are limits to the rewards they can offer and power based only on the ability to punish cannot be easily maintained.

Consider some of the supposed rewards - I'll start with committee assignments. Most members of the Assembly want to advance in their careers. They want a shot at being chair, they want a shot at a significant committee. The problem is the Assembly is a body in great stasis. As chronicled by Josh Kurtz in a great piece at CenterMaryland Mike Busch is the "longest-tenured speaker in state history... Adrienne Jones... the longest-serving speaker pro tem... Kumar Barve... the longest-serving House majority leader... Joe Vallario and Sheila Hixson...the longest-serving chairmen of their respective committees." That long service may be great for some, but for others it just means no upward mobility. For Busch it means fewer prime spots to offer as rewards. Perhaps the next time Busch creates a dual committee supercommittee just to avoid the defeat of a bill he supports more members of his party will be speak up.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Rob Garagiola was supposed to be heading to Congress. Mike Miller gerrymandered a district just for him - MD-06. This would then create a reverse domino effect of open positions and allow for some advancement - even if it meant advancing to a figure head position like majority leader. It would also prove that loyalty to Miller can mean great things - like his endorsement and a tailor-made congressional district. But then a novice named John Delaney crushed Garagiola. The high powered help provided by Martin O'Malley and Steny Hoyer delivered nothing to Garagiola. The early pressure placed on Delaney by party higher ups to stay out failed. Now, Garagiola remains majority leader, so no advancements, no dominoes. Perhaps worse, the defeat calls into question Mike Miller's ability to deliver, his ability to reward. Perhaps next time a bill arises opposed by Republicans and conservative Democrats those Democrats won't fear joining a Republican filibuster. The loss also revealed schisms in the state party establishment - and it showed that even the support of the most prominent members of the party establishment is of little help. And never mind that to create the district for Garagiola, Rep. Chris Van Hollen's once safe 8th district was drastically redrawn and Van Hollen - chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - will now have to fight for his seat. What a great way to treat a former colleague who has made the jump to Congress.

Even as Busch and Miller seem to have less to offer their members they seem to have plenty to offer themselves. Though very much ignored in the press, many members of the Assembly took note of how Busch and Miller treated themselves in the redistricting process. Speaker Busch has always been a little vulnerable in his Anne Arundel district - often finishing in a tight cluster among the top 4 candidates in a three member district. Busch remedied that situation by dividing district 30 into a new single member 30B and a two member 30A - 30A was made more Democratic and that's where Busch will run. Never mind that the division of districts into single member subdistricts was meant to be reserved for geographically large rural districts. Miller, not to be outdone, shifted his Prince Georges/Calvert county district 27 a bit further south into Calvert county to protect his own seat. But in doing so, Miller drew fellow Democrat Del. Joseph Vallario Jr. out of 27 and placed him in District 23B along with another Democrat Del. Marvin Holmes.

One may as well consider the treatment of Democratic Senator Jim Brochin. Brochin is a conservative representing a marginally Democratic district in Baltimore county. Frequently a thorn in the side of Miller and Gov. O'Malley. Brochin's district was shifted north and made decidedly more Republican so that Democrats in his district could be used to maintain the size of Baltimore City's delegation. Many members, even those who disagreed with Brochin, were shocked by the willingness to sacrifice a member to settle a political score.

Starting to get the picture? There's seemingly little to offer members other than punishment and the rewards are reserved for the leadership. What's to keep dissident voices in line? Even reliable Democratic voices are starting to openly challenge Miller.

With regard to Governor O'Malley, he was quite cautious during his first term.  After an initial special session and modest tax increases the Governor spent the rest of his term holding most spending flat and avoiding any groundbreaking or controversial issues. Then he won reelection, then he became chair of the Democratic Governors Association, then he started thinking about 2016.... then things changed.

As his national star has risen O'Malley's Maryland star has dimmed. Prior governors have used redistricting to curry favor with members of the Assembly, to win support on key initiatives. Yet last session O'Malley introduced a modestly ambitious agenda and then stood on the sidelines and watched it be ignored - ignored after winning re-election by 14 points, by an Assembly dominated by members of his own party and soon to be subject to redistricting at his hands... but nothing. O'Malley watched as same-sex marriage legislation died and then only took it up as an important issue after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was able to push it through a divided legislature - and then it was all about 2016 and a Democratic presidential primary. But who actually delivered same-sex marriage? It was Speaker Busch and his joint committee and it was President Miller and his ability to quash any threat of a filibuster by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans (at least on this issue).

This session Governor O'Malley rolled out his most ambitious agenda ever. The elimination of tax deductions for upper income earners, the application of the state sales tax to gasoline, a state-imposed ban on septic systems, off shore wind (again)... just to name a few initiatives. But the session started with O'Malley suggesting an increase in the sales tax on the opening day - suddenly a day always dedicated to ceremony found Busch and Miller answering questions about the sales tax. As the session began President Miller quipped that he hoped O'Malley would find more time to spend in the state. The Senate essentially dismissed the O'Malley budget and created their own. Miller was unable (or unwilling) to stop the Democratic and Republican coalition that joined to filibuster the septic bill. As the 90 day session nears a close the House and Senate are far apart on the budget and the one person who seems to have no role in the negotiations? Martin O'Malley. Rather than deal with the unfinished O'Malley agenda the Assembly is wasting time ratifying the 17th amendment - in effect since 1913. And as the Assembly is caught up in a budget debate that threatens much of the rest of the O'Malley agenda the Governor is suddenly talking about increasing the sales tax again.

Maryland's Democratic party is in disarray. The Garagiola defeat simply shined a bit more light on the problem. Leadership in the Assembly are faced with restless members eager to advance, yet there is little the leadership can offer. The state faces significant challenges, but its governor has shifted his gaze to a national stage. His proposals are more about national primary politics than about Maryland politics. O'Malley is forcing the state Democratic party to defend issues that are well in-line with the national Democratic party but more left of center than the Maryland Democratic party. As party leadership is less able to hold members in line many conservative Democrats and moderate Democrats from rural and even suburban parts of the state are going to become more concerned with their electoral needs than with the party's needs.

To look at the House and Senate today based solely on numbers it would be easy to dismiss any talk of a party in trouble. But Republicans hold 43 of 141 seats in the House. A review of the election results from 2010 suggests the party came close to holding quite a few more. If Democrats cannot fix their current problems they will face, within the next two election cycles, a House with over 50 Republicans - unprecedented in Maryland. In the Senate, Republicans took a hit in 2010 falling to 12 out of 47 seats - but consider the Democratic seats in Districts 3, 29, 30, and 38 - they are far from safe and a few other districts have seen Democratic margins shrink significantly since 2006. Republicans need only 19 seats to mount a filibuster and therefore alter the power balance in the chamber. So far, Democrats have been able to capitalize on the fact that the Maryland Republican party has been an organizational mess frequently unable to field credible candidates. There are signs that is ending.

After the 2010 elections Republicans for the first time hold 50% of all local offices - though some are quick to ignore this milestone to do so is narrowminded. This marked a significant movement by state Republicans. For 2012 Republicans are fielding credible challengers (as opposed to challenges) against Dutch Ruppersberger in the 2nd congressional district and Chris Van Hollen in the 8th. Dan Bongino is likely to make a serious run against Senator Ben Cardin - none of these GOP candidates are likely to win but it's a sign of life in a party that has often offered no or only token challenges. Even in the 5th district, Steny Hoyer faced a credible challenger (as opposed to challenge) in Charles Lollar in 2010 and will again from House of Delegates Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell. Hoyer is in no danger, but Republicans are learning that the party cannot afford to let Democrats go unchallenged. Yes, Lollar lost by 30 points, but his coattails elected many Republicans to county office in St. Mary's and Calvert county in 2010 - two counties that he won easily.

To focus only on the margin of victory or loss while ignoring the effects on the rest of the ballot is a mistake made by armchair analysts in some random blogger's forum. It's not a mistake that can be made by party leadership. It's from these local offices that the party develops a bench of potential candidates for the Assembly or other offices. Republicans are realizing that to win down ballot they must run up ballot - even if it's a losing race. Even if the Democrats' real registration advantage means winning a statewide race will likely always be a losing battle for Republicans it's a battle they seem to be waking to the need to fight. In 2010 the the state GOP hung its statewide hopes on Bob Ehrlich and did not bother to mount real challenges for any other statewide office - why would voters take such a party seriously?

Now I've been writing about Maryland politics long enough to know that I will soon be the recipient of numerous e-mails telling me how the "radical, right wing, tea party Republicans" will never be competitive in Maryland. Well sorry folks, regardless of how much the national Republican party has moved right the Maryland Republican party is little more conservative today than it was in 1994 when Ellen Sauerbrey came with 6,000 votes of being governor. But the Maryland Democratic party has moved left - moved closer to the national party. That movement is placing real pressure on the state party coalition. Perhaps more challenging for the party has been the Republicans' newly discovered weapon - the internet driven petition initiative and referendum. Now, when conservative Democrats cast a vote "for the party" on a tough issue they can't rely on voters' short memories. Likewise, even if they vote against the issue the petition and referendum will keep the public focused on it - it's only a matter of time until a hot button referendum vote coincides with a state election. The presence of same-sex marriage and the Maryland Dream Act on the 2012 ballot may well boost Republican chances in the 2nd, 6th, and 8th districts and in the senate race. Imagine the impact in a non-presidential election.

The Maryland Democratic party needs a shakeup. It needs leadership that is concerned with - of all things - Maryland. Democrats claim 56% of registered voters to Republicans 27% - but the fastest growing segment of the Maryland electorate is unaffiliated voters... and they vote Republican. Maryland is not a 2 to 1 Democratic state. At best it's about 60/40 in actual voting. Democrats have been able to use their institutional advantages to turn that 60% of the vote into 70% of House seats and 75% of Senate seats. But for how much longer? If the party continues to push conservative Democrats away a 55/45 state is not impossible to imagine - and with it a power balance in the General Assembly unseen in the modern era. And O'Malley's new found passion for tax increases (in the midst of a very weak economic recovery) and opposition to rural development (sorry about the collapse in value of your family's farmland) is providing Republicans with an incredible opening - 2012 and especially 2014 will tell whether the minority party is truly ready to compete.

The party also needs to ask whether it will continue to be the uniquely Maryland Democratic party that has dominated the state since the age of Jackson (never mind that little respite during Reconstruction) or whether it will become a state-based clone of the national party. That would make the party more ideologically homogeneous and as such much easier to mange. But, like the national party it would emulate, it would be smaller and less powerful than it once was. The next Democratic governor will have a lot to do with how that internal party conversation will go. I suspect much of the primary will be dedicated to that conversation and the election may well provide the decision. I hope it's a good one.

Do Liberal Activists Control the Democratic Party? Yes, Yes They Do.

A few critics of the report I wrote for Third Way have targeted my assertion that liberal activists control the Democratic party. It's worth noting that the folks who have taken issue with that claim are themselves liberal activists - so their perception may be skewed. As a quick check I examined the DW-NOMINATE scores of all Democratic House members in the 112th Congress. The average first-dimension score of the Democratic caucus is -.429. Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader, scores a -.533 - well to the left of average. I then took the party leadership - Minority Leader, Whip, Assistant Leader, Whips, Caucus Chair, Steering Committee and Ranking Members on major committees - and the average score across those folks was a -.496. Fewer than a third of the leadership had a DW-NOMINATE score more conservative than the caucus average.

A study last year by Joseph Bafumi and Michael Herron found that Democrats in Congress are to the left of even the median Democratic voter in their respective states (GOP members are too the right of the median GOP voter). So essentially, in a Democratic caucus in the House that is already to the left of Democratic voters, the leadership of the party is to the left of the caucus - so do liberal activists control the Democratic party? Well yes, yes they do.

Some folks questioned my reliance on self-identified ideology. The research on that is actually quite extensive and shows without question that how one identifies on a liberal-conservative dimension reflects one’s core system of preferences and attitudes and is reliably correlated with a range of substantive policy preferences including the size and scope of government, traditional vs. progressive social values, and the use of military force. I would direct critics to the following works:

1. Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, K. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
2. Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408-46.
3. Gerring, J. (1997). Ideology: A Definitional Analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 957-994.JostNosek, B. A., & Gosling, D. S. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, andpolitical psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126-136.
4. Gerring, J. (1998). Party ideologies in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, D. S. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126-136.

Democrats are a diverse coalition of voters, but ideologically the party is home to a large number of moderates even though party activists are liberal. The party cannot win without the support of those moderates. It cannot afford to push them away. To those on the left that refuse to accept anything less than ideological purity consider - if candidate A shares 5% of your beliefs and candidate B shares 60% of your beliefs - and there is no candidate C - withholding your vote because B doesn't represent 100% of your beliefs does nothing more than help elect candidate A.There are no moral victories in politics. After the election the moral victor goes home. The actual victor makes policy.

O'Malley's Tax Plans May Hurt Democrats in 2012

In a recent post I criticized Governor O'Malley's proposed tax increase on gas and the plan to double the flush tax as too regressive to be acceptable. Now, the good folks at the Washington Post have done the math and show just how unfair O'Malley's tax increases would be.

According to an analysis by the Post low and then middle income Marylanders will face the most significant increases in their tax burden should all of O'Malley's proposals be accepted. And which group would see the smallest increase in their tax burden? Families earning over $500,000 per year. In fact, the percentage increase in tax burden for a single person earning $34,000 per year would be double that of a family earning $500,000 per year. Of the nearly $1 billion in tax and fee increases proposed by the governor only $200 million - 20% - would come from limiting tax deductions from higher income Marylanders. The remaining 80% on the increases come from regressive excise taxes.

President Obama has repeatedly argued for tax increases only on folks earning at least $250,000 per year, arguing that Republican opposition stems from the Republican party's desire to protect the wealthy at the expense of every one else. Martin O'Malley is no mere bystander in this national debate. As Chair of the Democratic Governors Association he is a spokesperson and symbol for his party. O'Malley's incredibly regressive tax proposals undermine the Democratic party message and suggest a party unconcerned with the plight of working class families - and that's no small problem. No doubt, defenders of the Governor's proposal will be quick to point out that the increased out of pocket costs for a family earning $500,000 per year will be $1,347 while the increase for a single person earning $34,000 will be $112. But ask yourself - who will feel the loss of income more acutely?

Working class voters will be crucial to the Democrats' success or failure in the 2012 elections. Forget all of the talk about Barack Obama winning in 2008 because of a surge in turnout by young or minority voters - by people who never voted before. Exit polls from 2008 show the share of first time voters  in 2008 was exactly the same as in 2004. The real key to Obama's and the Democrats' victories in 2008 was the return of working class voters to the Democratic fold.  As shown in the figure below, Democrats have been experiencing a steady erosion of support among working class voters since the late 1950s.

Source: American National Election Studies



In 2008 there was a reversal of the trend and working class voters returned to the Democratic party. These voters abandoned the party in the 2010 midterms and delivered control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. If Democrats cannot win them back in 2012 the party will lose the White House and the Senate and Republicans will once again have unified control of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Democrats cannot win back working class voters by imposing regressive and punitive taxes on them in the midst of a weak economic recovery. Governor O'Malley's proposals would increase the cost of driving to work and the cost of goods and services through higher gas taxes, they would decrease disposable income by raising the flush tax (especially in rural and poor parts of the state where septic systems are common) and increasing utility costs.

And while Democrats nationally claim to favor progressive taxation that would ensure the wealthiest pay "their fair share" Governor O'Malley's plan would impose a greater burden (as a percentage of income) on low income, working, and middle class voters in Maryland as compared to the wealthiest earners in the state.

O'Malley has said that he gave a great deal of thought to his proposed tax increases. If true, that may be the saddest commentary of all. Democrats cannot win without the working class, and working class families cannot emerge from the great recession under the burden of regressive taxes.

The Democrats' Fraying Coalition

It's been a bad week (year?) for the Democratic Party. In two special elections the party suffered serious defeats. In Nevada (NV-2), a district that John McCain narrowly won in 2008, voters elected Republican Mark Amodei with a 22 point victory margin. In New York (NY-9), a district formerly held by disgraced representative Anthony Weiner elected a Republican for the first time since the 1920s. The district was considered to be a safe Democratic district. Weiner won re-election by nearly 20 point during the Republican sweep in 2010 and Obama carried it comfortably in 2008.

On the same day as the special elections a moderate Democratic organization called Third Way released a survey and strategy memo in which they detail the Democrats' problem with party "switchers" and "droppers." Names given to Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 but then voted Republican in 2010 or simply did not vote.  These members of the Democratic coalition are more moderate and less loyal to the party.

In a recent post, I presented evidence that there is a significant and growing disconnect between Democratic party activists and rank and file party members. There is no such disconnect among Republican voters. Simply stated, the Democratic coalition is quite ideologically diverse, with most members identifying as moderates and nearly as many self-identified conservatives as liberals - but party activists, the folks who set the party's agenda, are decidedly liberal. As a result, a significant segment of the Democratic coalition is situated either between the extremes of the two parties or, in some cases, closer to the Republican party.

The result is a higher likelihood of defections among Democrats. A review of data from an American National Elections Studies panel survey of the same folks in 2000, 2002, and 2004 demonstrates this quite well. In Table 1, we see that Democrats of all partisan strengths in 2000 were more likely to have left the Democratic party by 2002 or 2004 than were their Republican counterparts.

Party switching is only one indication of party loyalty - voting is a far more telling indicator. Using the same panel survey, I explored the voting patterns of Democrats and Republicans across three Congressional elections and found that Democrats, especially independent Democrats, are less loyal to party over time.

As shown in Table 2, weak and independent Democrats had roughly the same party loyalty as Republicans in the 2000 election - but when looking at how those same folks voted in 2002 or 2004 the Democrats were considerably more likely to have defected and voted Republican. Unfortunately for the Democratic party, independent Democrats are the fastest growing segment of Democratic partisans, consisting of one-third of party identifiers. And these folks are less attached to the party over time and less likely to vote for the party in Congressional elections over successive elections. This may provide an explanation for the Democrat’s inability to translate their partisan identification advantage into consistent electoral victory. Democrats need to close the ideological divide that exists between party activists and rank and file members.

There may be more money and passion among activists on the left, but there aren't enough voters to secure electoral victory. The true wealth of voters in the Democratic coalition resides in the political center and that's where the Democratic party will find the path to its survival.

Why Democrats Lose (or Why Republicans Win)

*** Updated with a word of warning for Republicans who think this post holds good news for the GOP (see the end).


No matter how you measure party preference, Democrats have enjoyed a consistent lead for over 60 years. According to data from the American National Election Studies that lead has fluctuated, but remains significant.

Source: ANES

In 2008, Democrats led Republicans by 14 percentage points (when voters who lean toward one party or the other were included in the calculation). Even in years when Republicans won the presidency, including the Reagan landslide of 1984, Democrats enjoyed a voter preference advantage. Though not shown in the above chart, Democrats enjoyed similar advantages during midterm elections when they lost control of Congress or failed to retake control.

So why can't Democrats translate their clear advantage in voter preference into party victory? Aren't we a polarized nation where 90% or Democrats vote for Democrats and 90% of Republicans vote for Republicans? In short, no we're not. Though America's two political parties, and the party activists who set agendas are quite polarized, there is little evidence of polarization within the broader electorate (see my prior post on this).

As shown in Panel A of the following figure, in 1972 the ideological distribution of Democrats and Republicans was actually quite similar. Both parties were dominated by self-identified moderates – the Democratic distribution skewed slightly left and the Republican right.

On the 7-point ideology identification scale (with 1 representing extremely liberal and 7 extremely conservative, a score of 4 represented moderate) the mean score for non-activist Democrats was 3.88 compared to 4.59 for Republicans – a statistically significant difference.  By 1996, the Republican electorate had shifted significantly to the right (mean value of 5.13) and Democrats had shifted slightly, though significantly to the left (mean value of 3.69). The distribution observed in 2008 is very much similar to that of 1996 for both parties. By 1996 a clear divergence between the two party coalitions is evident, but it is driven almost entirely by the Republican party’s move to the right.

Source: ANES. Party activists were defined as those who attended a campaign meeting or rally AND contributed money to a candidate or campaign.

So there is element one of the polarization story - party polarization among the broader, non-activist electorate, has been driven by Republican rank and file voters shifting right while Democratic rank and file members essentially stood still.

But there's more the story and it's told in Panel B of the figure. In 1972, Democratic and Republican party activists differed significantly from non-activists, yet moderates were a sizable component of each group's activist base.

Interestingly, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean value of the Republican distribution for activists and non-activists in 1972. Among Democrats, however, the mean value of 2.89 for party activists was significantly to the left of non-activists. This pattern held through 2008.

Though the Republican party’s activist base has become more conservative, so has the party’s non-activist membership. In 2008 the mean score on the ideological scale for Republican activists was 5.50 – not significantly different from the 5.16 value for non-activists. Among Democrats, activists sported a mean value of 2.85 as compared to 3.64 for non-activist – a significant difference.

Since 1972, Republican party members – activists and non-activists alike – have become more conservative. Suggesting little disconnect between rank and file members of the party and its most committed members. Among Democrats, however, the shift to the left observed among party activists has resulted in a divide between more liberal activist members and more moderate rank and file members.

So there's element two of the polarization story. Republican activists and rank and file members moved right together. Democratic activists are moving left without their rank and file members.

These changes in the party’s coalitions offer further explanation for the Democratic party’s electoral difficulties.
 
As shown in a prior post, the American electorate is not polarized along ideological lines. Though there has been some evidence of a slight rightward shift since 1972. Party activists, however, are very polarized, with Democratic activists well to the left of center and Republican activists well to the right. At first glance, this suggests party activists out of step with their party’s respective coalitions. But this is clearly truer for Democrats than for Republicans. The Democratic party’s coalition has shifted only slightly to the left, but remains well anchored around a core group of moderates. Party activists, however, are decidedly left of center.

So there's element three of the polarization story - the American public has shifted somewhat to the right, so by staying put, the Democratic coalition has in effect moved to the left.

A substantial share of the Democratic party’s coalition finds itself ideologically situated between the extremes of partisan activists on the left and the right. Simply stated, a Democratic party agenda tailored to liberal party activists is more likely to alienate a much broader segment of the Democratic coalition than would a Republican party agenda tailored to conservatives.

There is a greater disconnect between activists and voters in the Democratic party. Democrats have more to lose, with regard to potential voters, by following activists to the left than do Republicans by following a lead to the right. Given this ideological disconnect, one would expect less partisan attachment or party loyalty among Democratic voters – a weakening of partisanship.

In a separate posting later this week I will show that Democratic partisans are in fact less loyal to the party over time and more likely to disagree with the party on key issues of party faith.

In short, Democrats lose because the folks who set the agenda for the party are more out of step with rank and file membership than are the folks who set the agenda for the Republican party. For Republicans, there is strength and ideological cohesion on the right. Republicans win because there is little difference between party activists and rank and file members. Among Democrats, however, strength comes not from the left but from the center - that's where the parties core group of rank and file voters are and when the party strays left many of those voters defect.

Update: But Republicans should not look to this post as good news for the GOP. At present, Republicans are able to win because so many Democrats occupy that middle ground between the extremes of the two activist elements - but the GOP has been moving right faster than the overall electorate and in the opposite direction of the non-activist Democrats. If the GOP continues to trek to the right they will reach a point where moderate Democrats no longer view the GOP as an acceptable alternative.

Those moderate Democrats may decide to support their own party or just stay home - either way the GOP would be left with it's smaller coalition of voters.

Perhaps more dangerous for the GOP, the Democratic party could moderate it's agenda and actively seek to close the gap between activists and non-activists. If Democrats can unify their coalition and consistently attract the broad middle of America's electorate the GOP is sunk and will return to the near minor party status they occupied between 1932 and 1964.

The data on party coalition ideology suggests that Democrats can move to the center and win, if Republicans move to the center they risk alienating a substantial portion of their electoral coalition.  So long as America remains a moderate nation, odds favor a re-emergent Democratic majority - but only if Democrats actively work to make it happen. The real question for Democrats is whether liberal party activists will cede control of the agenda and allow the party to move in the direction of it's moderate, non-activist voters. Current anger at President Obama, coming from the American left, suggest those activists are not quite ready.

The GOP has become the Gene Hackman Character from the Birdcage

I was watching The Birdcage on TV today (the 1996 remake of the french film La Cage Aux Folles). As I watched the Gene Hackman character I realized something funny and sad - his character was a caricature, an exaggeration, in 1996, but today the character plays like any number of GOP leaders or presidential candidates.

Watch this clip from the film dealing with gays in the military and prayer in schools and ask yourself - is there anything funny about Hackman's portrayal? 

Gays in the Military



The Birdcage
— MOVIECLIPS.com

It was funny in 1996 because it represented a fringe element of the Republican party - a party that had nominated George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole - Dole stood at the podium during his nominating convention and said:

The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view. But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.

What happened to the GOP? The Hackman caricature has become reality. Is there anything spoken by the Hackman character (then for shock value laughs) that is not today a standard part of a GOP candidate's stump speech?

Since the 1960s, the Democrats have become ever more beholden to leftwing interests and activists. But the political reality of being one of two parties in a right of center country has tempered the party's liberalism and resulted in a greater willingness to compromise and moderate. The GOP, however, has found considerable success via a strategy that targets very conservative base voters. At one time it may have been mere strategy, but those base voters now dominate the elected members of the party and truly set it's priorities.

It's a sad thing to see...

I think the GOP continues to win because most independent voters identify with the GOP on issues such as the size and scope of government, taxation, and, often, foreign policy. Meanwhile, social issue are less salient and independents have been able to tolerate the GOP's increasing social conservatism - but as the GOP moves ever more right in the face of a larger society that is becoming ever more tolerant it will become harder and harder for independents to turn a blind eye to the GOP on social issues.

With Democrats becoming more accommodating on issue such as taxation and spending cuts the party is positioning itself rather well to become the new home of those independent voters.  The great danger for the Democrats is that the party's liberal base will feel rejected and stop supporting the party. The liberal base, however, has never been quite as large as the conservative base - so the Democratic party can become America's moderate and dominant party even without liberal activists - and I think it's likely that it will.

Is it Really All about Trust or is the Party Over?

In Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism, Marc Hetherington argues that a decline in  political trust has undermined progressive policy enactment in America since the 1960s. He writes that America has not become more conservative, rather that Republicans have been able to exploit declining levels of trust to gain power.

In chapter 8, under the heading What the Left Should Learn he argues that liberals can reenergize public trust and reinvigorate progressive policy making if they only stopped the reflexive criticisms of the system and started to talk positively about government and the effect of policy. From page 146 and 147 "If progressives provide and alternative vision of government as one that takes care of older Americans, protects the environment, builds highways, and the like, Americans will trust that version of government... Recent Democrats have been too frightened to tell this story."

I cannot help but think that Democrats have been engaged in that exercise since 2006 and certainly since 2008. Democratic leaders like Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have an incredibly positive view of what government can do. President Obama spent his campaign and first 18 months in office trying to change public perception about government - yet the result thus far has been the opposite of what Hetherington predicted. Trust in government has fallen further, expressions of conservativism have risen, preferences for less government and fewer services are at recorded highs.

It seems that we are currently putting Hetherington's theories in Why Trust Matters to the test and thus far they are falling short.

The caveat may be that Democrats attained power by attacking government as helmed by Republicans - so they had to undermine confidence in Republicans to achieve victory, but may well have undermined confidence in government as well. This is a challenge for liberals, how do you simultaneously try to bolster confidence in government while criticizing government as led by Republicans. Can one expect the public to discern the difference between criticizing Republican governance specifically as opposed to American government in general?

This is of course the reality of governing and campaigning in an era of weak party attachment among the mass public. Since the 1960s the electorate has become much less attached to either political party. Data from the American National Election Study show that there has been a marked increase in the share of the electorate that is either Independent or Leaning Independent.

At the same time, the share of the electorate identifying as Strong Partisans has fallen from its highs in the 1950s and early1960s.

Why does the decline in partisanship matter? Because it effects how parties must campaign for office. In an era when partisanship was strong and very few Americans considered themselves to be Independent candidates for office could campaign based on voters positive attachment to their party. Voters were being asked to vote for the Democratic party, for the party's agenda. As relatively few Americans identified as Independent such partisan appeals worked. In the present era, however, neither the Democrats nor Republicans have a sufficient foundation of electoral support to campaign merely based on party attachment. Instead, they must campaign on a platform of rejection of the opposing party and its administration of government. To accomplish this it becomes necessary to undermine public confidence in opposition's governance and this typically, inevitably undermines public confidence in government.

Evidence of these efforts were seen in the Democratic criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the War in Iraq, in calls for a 9/11 Commission, and in response to the government’s response to hurricane Katrina. More recently, Republican criticisms of President Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill serve the purpose of undermining confidence. Though these efforts at undermining confidence in the other party may offer short-term political gain, they also serve further to erode public confidence in government. Solutions to big problems, such as budget deficits, often seem too risky for either side in this “confidence game” to pursue.

Hetherington treated trust as an independent variable that undermined progressive policy making - in reality trust is a dependent variable resulting from a dramatic decline in mass partisan attachment since the 1960s. Trust is unlikely to rebound unless the American party system rebounds - at present there is little indication that such a rebound is likely to take place in the near future. Though Hetherington, in subsequent research, and other scholars like Alan Abramowitz (see his just released The Disappearing Center) argue that the public has become more partisan in recent years and more attached to party what these scholars have actually found is increased partisanship and polarization among political elites and they have mistakenly attributed that polarization to the mass electorate.

Rather more than one-third of the electorate operates as non-partisan free agents. So each party seeks immediate strategic advantage, but neither can undertake substantial policy reforms as they lack mass-based support. We entered an era that political scientist Walter Dean Burnham defines as the “politics of collision, coalition, and the permanent campaign.” This has created a system of government incapable of addressing the significant challenges before us, which then reinforces distrust and likely further undermines partisan attachment.

President Obama and Independent Voters - A Marriage of Convenience Heading for a Nasty Divorce?

The always great William Galston takes a look at just how much public opinion of the Democrats and Republicans has shifted among Independents. Galston considers the recent PEW poll

"On the whole, 58 percent of voters see Democrats as liberal or very liberal, while 56 percent see Republicans as conservative or very conservative; no surprise there. But voters now place themselves much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party on this left-right continuum. Indeed, the ideological gap between the Democratic Party and the mean voter is about three times as large as the separation between that voter and the Republican Party. And, startlingly, the electorate places itself a bit closer to the Tea Party movement (which is well to the right of the Republican Party) than to the Democratic Party. All this represents a major shift from five years ago, when mean voters placed themselves exactly halfway between their ideological perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties."

Many political insiders have wondered why the Democrats and the Presidents are in such dire straits considering the success they have had enacting legislation - the stimulus, health reform, regulatory reform - by many measures this Congress and President have had one of the most productive sessions in years. Yet with each new bill approval of Congress seems to fall more and the President's approval rating is stuck in the mid 40s.

Why? Consider two more points from Galston:

• "In May 2009, after Obama had taken office and the broad political debate had shifted away from social issues and national security toward the economy and federal regulation, Pew found that Independents had begun to move toward the Republican Party."
• "Democrats are far more ideologically diverse than Republicans. Twenty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 5 percent of Republicans call themselves liberal or very liberal."

Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency was a campaign very much lacking in specifics. He spoke of health reform, tax reform, financial reform - but offered few details. His campaign was also quite centrist - Obama criticized Hillary Clinton's health reform proposal for containing an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. He criticized John McCain's proposal to tax employer based health insurance like income as "extreme." Candidate Obama spoke the language of Centrism when he problems absolutely no tax increases for any American earning less than $250,000 per year. He tapped into growing voter concern over America's rising debt and deficits and promised to reduce both and put us on a path to a balanced budget. Finally, he rightly sensed voter anger over special interests, corruption in Congress, and cozy relationships between the Bush Administration and corporate interests by pledging a transparent and ethical administration that would not hire lobbyists.

Obama's message spoke directly to the concerns of Independent voters and they supported him on Election Day by a margin of 52% to 44%. In 2004 Bush and Kerry split Independents 48% to 49%. Independents also increased their share of the electorate between 2004 and 2008 from 26% to 29%. So Independents have become more crucial to a presidential candidate and they helped deliver the White House to Obama.

In July of 2009 Gallup reported that Obama's support among Independents stood at a strong 56% - that was after the passage of the stimulus bill, but just before the summer of health care reform townhall meetings that would foreshadow the tough reform battle in Congress. Today, Obama's approval rating among Independents stands out 38% - an 18 point decline in one year.

Why the decline? Because Obama's legislative successes have turned Independents away. The economic stimulus bill added more than $800 billion to the national debt - on top of the $800 billion bank bailout passed in the waning days of the Bush administration. As a result, the nation's deficit for 2009 totaled $1.4 trillion and the deficit for 2010 is estimated to reached $1.5 trillion - simply staggering figures.

Just as concern over the debt was reaching a critical mass las summer the health reform debate began. Estimates placed the cost of reform at $1 trillion over ten years - triggering more debt concerns. Other elements of the reform proposals caused more concern - the individual mandate that Obama had opposed during the campaign was now part of the mix as was a proposal to tax employer health benefits. The individual mandate included a tax penalty for failure to comply - so the two proposals that candidate Obama had criticized were now on the table and the pledge to not raise taxes was pushed aside.

The manner in which health reform passed further antagonized Independent voters. The use of budget reconciliation to pass the bill in the Senate following the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the brief flirtation with using the "deeming" process to pass the bill in the House so as to avoid politically painful votes struck many Independents as more of the "politics as usual" that Obama had promised to change. Worse, subsequent news accounts reported that the cost of reform may well be more than initially estimated - and in fact may well worsen our deficits and increase costs.

Promises of transparency have been undermined with recent news regarding financial regulation and word that it exempts the Securities and Exchange Commission for freedom of information act requests. Add to this the fact that Obama administration issued an executive order prohibiting the hiring of lobbyists and then went about issuing multiple exemptions to that order so that lobbyists could be hired.

Adding more fuel to the debt fire a just released report from the Congressional Budget Office warns that unless serious actions are taken - significant spending cuts, dramatic tax increases, or both - "growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels... In only one other period in U.S. history—during and shortly after World War II" has our debt reached its current levels.

But the CBO warns that tax increases "would discourage work and saving, further reducing output and incomes."

In sum, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have scored considerable legislative successes - but many of those successes contained elements that directly broke pledges made by the President during the 2008 campaign - pledges that were central to his gaining the support of Independents. This means that Democrats cannot go into the midterms touting their accomplishments. Instead, indications are that they will base their campaign not on why they are worthy of support, but rather on why Republicans are unworthy- including portraying Republicans as racist Tea Party fanatics. It's a desperate and risky tactic, but it's the only option they have. They cannot win back the support of Independents in the near term, so instead they are trying to depress their support for and turnout on behalf of Republicans.

It's a sad state of affairs and speaks to how much the Democrats' fortunes have changed in the last two years. Between 2002 and 2006 unified Republican government drove Independents into the arms of the Democrats. Four years later Democrats appear to be driving them right back. It remains to be seen whether the result will divided government, and if so, how Independents will react to that.