|
|
Facts,
Figures or Fulmination?
Political
punditry can yield almost any conclusion regarding
Virginia's political future. It all depends on how
deeply you want to drill beneath the surface.
State
delegates and senators may seem to be marking time
until the General Assembly reconvenes April 2, but
they're not idle. It's the
pre-primary political season in
Virginia, a time
when candidates, party bosses and campaign
contributors circle one another and sniff out who
will be running for what.
March
12 is the deadline for party chairs of election
districts to tell the State Board of Elections
whether their districts will select nominees
through primaries, caucuses or conventions. The
decision potentially tilts the playing field in
intra-party nominating contests, of which there
appear to be at least five in the state Senate and
four in the House.
It
can be dangerous
to cite polls or spout statistics without without regard for whether the
relationship between the numbers and swings in
political power are casual or
causal. The conclusions can be bland generalities, such as,
"It's hard to see how the Democrats pick up
any significant number of seats in the General
Assembly this year," or, "Consolidating
the Republican advantage in the House should help
Jerry Kilgore's race for Governor in 2005."
Serious
analysts distinguish between fact, figure and
fulmination. Take the conventional wisdom that
Virginia is a traditional state which, with the
exception of the governor, stands ready to
re-elect its delegates and senators every two and
four years, respectively. By
this logic, there would seem little opportunity
for challengers, even with this
November's
elections putting all 100 delegate seats and all
40 senate seats before the voters.
But a comparison of elected
representatives sitting in 1992 and 2002 proves
otherwise.
The
1991 elections for Virginia's
General Assembly are generally understood to have
brought more new members, 32, to the House of
Delegates and Virginia Senate than any other
election in modern political history. A decade
later, less than half the delegates and senators
taking their seats in 1992 are still serving: 19
of 40 senators, and 39 of 100 delegates. The
turnover that began in 1991 has continued ever
since.
Working from those statistics as a baseline,
casual analysis might suggest that, contrary to
our original position, continuing
change must be the rule: Far from favoring
incumbents, Virginians seem inclined to throw the
bums out.
But not so fast! Peel back one layer
of numbers and you get another. Accounting for
much of the turnover is the fact that nine of
1992's delegates have moved up, into the Senate.
Therefore, of the state's 40 senators, 28, or 70
percent, have served in the General Assembly
since 1992.
Furthermore,
15 of the 19 senators in office continuously since
1992 make up the powerful Senate Finance Committee --
Chichester, Colgan,
Lambert, Wampler, Stosch, K. Miller, Houck,
Hawkins, Howell, Saslaw, Trumbo, Stolle, Quayle,
Norment, Potts. And every budget conferee in 2003
- five delegates (Callahan, Putney, Dillard,
Hamilton, Thomas) and four senators (Chichester, Wampler,
Stosch, Colgan) -- was in his respective house
back in 1992. You call that change?
The
obvious explanation for those numbers is that
power stems from seniority. But beware: Seniority
does not arise from mere longevity in office.
Many factors -- personal, political, idiosyncratic
-- drive seniority. Continued willingness to serve
is personal. Protective redistricting is
political. Stable voting patterns of independent
voters are idiosyncratic. New family priorities
are personal. Strong performance for constituents
is political. Having a strong opponent suddenly
opt for another office is idiosyncratic.
Other
factors, most of them political, influence a
politician's rise to power,
including the elevation of one's
political party to majority status or its demotion to
minority. So do issues, campaigns, voter
habits and the respect of one's colleagues.
On
the surface, political affiliation seems to have
little influence on a representative's seniority. Of the 39 delegates
from 1992
who remain in the House in today 19 are
Republicans, 18 are Democrats and two are
independents. Of the 19 senators remaining in the
Senate, 10 are Republicans and 9 are Democrats.
But,
instead of focusing on the survivors, let's
scrutinize the turnover. Republicans won nine of 11 contested Senate seats in 1991 and 13
of 21 contested House seats. Six of the nine
delegates who moved to the Senate since then are Republicans (Martin, Mims, Newman, O'Brien, Wagner
and Watkins), while only three are Democrats
(Deeds, Puller and Reynolds). Putting aside the 39
delegates who have served in the House since 1992
or earlier, Republicans now hold 47 of the
remaining 61 seats. Issues, campaigns and voter
habits become more of a causal factor in this
analysis, which documents the rise of the
Republican majority and demise of the Democrats in
the General Assembly.
Is
that result a laurel to rest on -- evidence of a
permanent Republic majority -- or a warning sign
that change now will turn against Republican
candidates? Consider this: Since
2000, in both general and special elections, 29
new delegates have entered the House -- but all
but five were Republicans elected in districts
tailored to produce a Republican majority.
It
appears that willingness to stand for re-election
is a wild card. Veteran
senators Kevin Miller, Bo Trumbo and Henry Maxwell
will retire. So will veteran delegates Jim Almand,
Chip Woodrum and Vic Thomas (along with more
recently elected Delegates Karen Darner and George
Broman). Meanwhile, incumbents continue to draw
challengers. Veteran senators Tommy Norment and
Russ Potts, and delegate Jack Rollison, have
attracted challengers within their own party
because of issue differences. Other veterans will
be challenged on the issues by candidates from
"the other party" on November 4.
Based
on the foregoing analysis,
one could conclude casually, "Most incumbents
will be back, but there will be some election
surprises in November," or even predict,
"Veterans will still be in charge of a
changing Senate, while veterans in the House will
be sharing power with newcomers." Whatever
the outcome of Nov. 4, you can say you read it
here first.
--
March 10, 2003
|
