|
1982
MAY HOLD CLUES TO 2006
Though the 2004 elections happened only a little over two months ago,
the political focus here in Ohio has quickly shifted to the 2006 elections.
With the ’06 term limit-forced departures of Gov. Bob Taft and
Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and the expressed plans of State Auditor
Betty Montgomery and Attorney General Jim Petro to seek the GOP gubernatorial
nomination rather than re-election, it’s likely that only one of
the elections next year for our five statewide constitutional offices
will involve an incumbent. And that lone incumbent, Treasurer Jeannette
Bradley, a Republican, will be running for the seat for the first time,
having just been appointed to the position earlier this month by the
Governor. She succeeded former Treasurer Joe Deters, who resigned after
being elected Hamilton County Prosecutor last November.
One must go back a long way in Ohio political history to find a similar
set of circumstances. The last time at least four of the five races
for statewide office didn’t involve incumbents running for re-election
was 1982. That year, the decision by Gov. Jim Rhodes to retire rather
than seek a third term set off a down-ballot chain reaction: Attorney
General Bill Brown decided to seek the Democratic gubernatorial nomination
(he lost the primary to Dick Celeste, who went on to win the governor’s
seat) and Secretary of State Tony Celebrezze in turn opted to run for
Attorney General rather than for re-election. Three-term Treasurer Gertrude
Donahey also retired in 1982. Auditor Tom Ferguson was the only incumbent
to seek re-election – and, unlike Bradley, he was a veteran of
multiple statewide campaigns seeking a third term.
2006 may be similar to 1982 in another way, as well. In 1982 there were
two races pitting first-time statewide candidates against one another:
Sherrod Brown vs. Virgil Brown in the open race to succeed Celebrezze
as Secretary of State and Mary Ellen Withrow vs. Dana Rinehart for Treasurer.
Those races were won by Sherrod Brown and Withrow, both Democrats. Since
1982, it’s only happened twice: in the 1998 Treasurer’s race,
when Deters beat John Donofrio, and in the 1994 Secretary of State campaign,
when Blackwell defeated Barbara Sykes.
The likelihood that the ’06 ballot will resemble the ’82 ballot
by featuring multiple first-time candidate matchups seems good. Though
the list of individuals rumored to be contemplating a statewide run
next year is not a short one, outside of those mulling a gubernatorial
bid there are only a handful that have ever run statewide before. Though
all of them happen to be Democrats, two names on the Republican list
are at least blessed with extremely recognizable surnames: State Rep.
Kevin DeWine and Franklin County Recorder Rob Montgomery.
With the success of GOP candidates Voinovich, DeWine, Taft, Blackwell,
Montgomery, and Petro, there has been room on the GOP statewide ticket
for only one new face since 1994 – Deters in 1998. As a result,
there are many other Republicans who harbor statewide ambitions that
have had no choice but to simply be patient and wait…for 2006.
The recent GOP domination has had an impact on the Democrats, as well.
The electoral success and name recognition of these veteran Republicans
made challenging them a risky proposition, thus keeping most of the
Democrats’ strongest potential statewide candidates on the sidelines
during the past decade. Therefore, many of them have also had their
sights set on 2006. Several are currently said to be considering a bid
for governor: U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman,
former U.S. Rep. Dennis Eckart, ’98 Democratic gubernatorial nominee
Lee Fisher, Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic, TV and radio talk-show host
Jerry Springer. U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland announced last week he will
not seek the Democratic nomination for governor next year.
The trick for Democrats, if they are going to make a successful comeback
in Ohio, will not only be to find a formidable gubernatorial candidate,
but also to convince other strong, credible candidates to run for down-ticket
offices. In particular, the party needs to focus on getting high-caliber
candidates to run for Auditor and Secretary of State. The best chance
the Democrats have of regaining majority control of the Ohio General
Assembly rests first with getting a majority of the Apportionment Board
– the body that draws the lines for state legislative districts
– and the Auditor and Secretary of State, along with the Governor,
make up three-fifths of the Apportionment Board. So this task would
be much easier if the party has incumbents running for re-election in
2010 in advance of the next round of redistricting the following year.
COMING SOON…TO OHIO?
At the beginning of every year, P.a.C.E. staff makes a trek to some
(usually) warm and sunny climate to attend the annual United for State
Action Roundtable meeting, a gathering of state business political action
leaders from around the country. This meeting facilitates the sharing
of effective strategies to use in supporting pro-business political
candidates and enables states to anticipate opposition activity. Representatives
of business organizations from 20 states were present this year.
Topics discussed this year include: judicial campaign involvement by
the business community, GOTV activities geared towards employees, the
migration of campaign finance reform to the state level, and the use
of initiatives & referenda as political weapons.
The Ohio legislature tackled campaign finance reform last year and the
Ohio Chamber, with our www.OhioBusinessVotes.com website, has been at
the forefront of leveraging technology to promote employee involvement
since 2002. We’ve also clearly been a leader in engaging the business
community in state judicial campaigns.
A trend we haven’t experienced nearly as much as other states –
California and Florida, in particular – is an increasing use of
statewide initiatives & referenda, not so much for the purpose of
actually enacting public policy, but more driven by a desire to either
motivate voter turnout for the benefit of a specific candidate on the
ballot or as negotiating leverage in the legislative process.
Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages were on the ballot
in 11 states, including Ohio, in 2004, and some contend that this was
done primarily to help drive a larger turnout of likely Bush voters.
Citizens for Community Values, the group behind the effort in Ohio,
denies it was done to aid Pres. Bush – though it no doubt had that
effect.
The latter strategy was certainly on display during the last session
of the Ohio General Assembly. When the legislature didn’t seem
inclined to act – or act as quickly as proponents would have liked
– on a proposal to create a drug discount program for the uninsured
and elderly, a coalition group collected enough signatures to put the
issue on the ballot. Following this threatened initiative, all the interested
parties got together, a compromise was reached, and legislation creating
the Best Rx discount card was passed. There was no need for the initiative
to ever go before the voters.
Though these are examples of how Ohio has already seen the initiative
& referendum strategy at work, Florida’s experience in 2004
demonstrates a much more devious use of initiatives & referenda.
A group called the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN) gathered the signatures to place on the November ballot
a Florida constitutional amendment to create a state minimum wage of
$6.15. The Florida Chamber of Commerce organized opposition to the amendment
and learned that, though ACORN held itself out to be a “non-partisan”
group, it was actually funded by non-Florida groups like MoveOn.org,
the national teachers union, trial lawyers, and liberal foundations.
The Florida Chamber obtained a copy of ACORN’s campaign plan for
the initiative, which listed its campaign goals as:
1. To increase
turnout of working class, mainly Democratic voters;
2. To increase the power of progressive constituencies;
3. To deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of Floridians.
The policy objective
was third on the list, and the strategy memo also noted that the initiative
“will help defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing
Democratic turnout in a close election” and “the signature
gathering phase of the campaign will lead to the construction of a vast
database of hundreds of thousands of economic justice activists and
voters in the state. These are the same voters the Democratic Party
must court and win to regain a presence in state politics.”
Florida has also witnessed an escalating war, fought with competing
ballot issues, between the state’s medical association and trial
bar. Like they have in Ohio, the Sunshine State’s doctors have
been hit by major increases in medical malpractice insurance rates and
have been clamoring for the legislature to act on liability reform.
The trial bar, of course, opposes such legislation. As a result, both
organizations have been playing a game of initiative & referendum
one-upmanship.
On the ballot last November was one initiative brought by the Florida
Medical Association that limits the amount of money an attorney can
reap from a successful medical liability case and two brought by the
Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers bar: one that takes away a physician’s
license if he is found guilty three times of medical malpractice and
another that opens up doctors’ records by requiring them to make
public all medical incidents resulting in injury or death.
Combined, the two groups spent $30 million on the three ballot issues.
All three passed with more than 60 percent of the vote, as did the ACORN-sponsored
minimum wage increase initiative.
Now, both groups are threatening retaliation. The AFTL has already collected
sufficient signatures to put on the ballot a proposal that would limit
what doctors can charge in some cases, forcing them to charge all patients
the lowest fee they charge to any patient for a procedure, and the FMA
is encouraging legislation that would limit attorney advertising. Where
the war ends, no one seems to know.
In Ohio, the process for bringing issues to the ballot is not nearly
as liberal as Florida’s. And the recently passed campaign finance
reform bill makes it more difficult to gather the signatures necessary
by requiring individuals who will provide or receive compensation for
obtaining signatures to file a registration statement and specifying
that paid circulators must be compensated solely on the basis of time
worked, not the normal fee-per signature or fee-per-volume basis.
Nonetheless, the business community needs to beware of this trend towards
“do-it-yourself” legislation. It may be the next resort for
groups – like the trial bar and organized labor – who have
not had allies in control of either the general assembly or governor’s
mansion for ten years and can no longer count on the Ohio Supreme Court
to stall or overturn pro-business legislative enactments.
Chamber Choice Alumni Populate Leadership In New General
Assembly
Since the creation of the Chamber Choice program in 1994, the Ohio Chamber
of Commerce Political Action Committee and the business community have
sought to produce a positive change in the composition of the state
legislature by targeting our political support on behalf of pro-business
candidates that need additional resources to win election.
We have posted a success rate of 74 percent for Chamber Choice candidates
over this time, and there are currently 20 Chamber Choice alumni serving
in the 126th General Assembly. In addition, several of these legislators
now serve in important positions of leadership, either as elected leaders
or as chairs or vice chairs of committees that traditionally consider
key legislation impacting business in Ohio:
• Sen. Ron
Amstutz (R-Wooster), Chair of the Ways & Means & Economic Development
Committee
• Sen. John Carey (R-Wellston), Chair of the Finance & Financial
Institutions Committee
• Sen. Jay Hottinger (R-Newark), Assistant Majority Whip, acting
Chair of the Insurance, Commerce & Labor Committee, and Vice Chair
of the Environment & Natural Resources Committee
• Sen. Bob Spada (R-N. Royalton), Assistant Majority Floor Leader
and Vice Chair of the Ways & Means & Economic Development Committee
• Rep. Chuck Blasdel (R-E. Liverpool), Speaker Pro Tem
• Rep. Chuck Calvert (R-Medina), Chair of the Finance & Appropriations
Committee
• Rep. Jon Husted (R-Kettering), Speaker of the House
• Rep. Merle Kearns (R-Springfield), Majority Floor Leader
• Rep. Jim Raussen (R-Cincinnati), Vice Chair of the Health Committee
While having allies
in these key positions does not guarantee success, it represents an
important step toward the passage of meaningful business legislation.
It is also reassuring to know that these key leadership positions are
held by lawmakers who will aggressively champion the free-market system.
PRESIDENTIAL
YEAR TURNOUT FAVORS
DEMOCRAT GENERAL ASSEMBLY CANDIDATES
Though they lost a net three seats during the 2004 elections, the cumulative
vote totals for House Republican candidates in Ohio exceeded that of
House Democrat candidates by nearly 167,000 votes. This marked the sixth
consecutive election cycle, dating back to 1994 in which GOP House candidates
captured a majority of the vote.
Although these numbers are somewhat skewed by the fact that 14 Democrats
and 11 Republicans ran either without opposition from a candidate of
the other party or without opposition altogether, Republicans captured
roughly 52% of the votes cast.
The chart below traces the cumulative vote totals of Democrat and Republican
candidates for the Ohio House from 1990-2004.
What this chart indicates is that Republican support is, on average,
two percentage points higher in non-presidential years than in presidential
years. Also, the Republican percentage of the vote increases in inverse
relation to the total number of votes – though not with exact correlation.
Turnout has averaged just under 3.2 million voters in the last four
non-presidential years. So, looking ahead to 2006, an expected lower
turnout should give a slight boost to GOP fortunes compared to 2004.
The cumulative vote total data indicate a different story altogether
on the Senate side. One would expect a strong correlation between overall
partisan votes for House and Senate candidates. However, because only
half the Senate seats are on the ballot in a given year, the numbers
indicate that districts favoring Republican candidates dominate presidential
years, while districts on the ballot in non-presidential years are more
competitive.
This actually suggests a favorable anomaly for Republicans: the most
competitive districts are on the ballot in non-presidential years, when,
as evidenced by the House chart, the reduced overall turnout favors
the GOP. Democrats have captured a majority of the vote in non-presidential
years each cycle dating back to 1990, with the notable exception of
1994 – the year of the nationwide GOP tsunami.
|
