Date: 10/28/2008
By ROBERT TANNER
AP National Writer
Political control of several key state legislatures could change hands on Election Day, raising the chance for one-party domination of swing states Michigan and Pennsylvania, booming Nevada and Northeast giant New York.
Democrats are cautiously optimistic that enthusiasm and turnout for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign will help their candidates far down the ticket. Republicans hope to steer clear of the national mood that has turned against the GOP and focus instead on local issues.
Though state legislative races draw far less attention than contests for the White House, Congress and governor, the party that controls the legislatures has an outsized role nationally — crafting domestic policy, drawing congressional districts and laying the foundation for political stars in the future.
Obama himself is only four years removed from a stint in the Illinois Legislature. Democratic control there first gave him the spotlight and the chance to pass legislation that he often cites on the campaign trail.
Nationally, Democrats already hold their strongest majority in more than a decade, controlling the legislatures in 23 states. Republicans dominate in 14 states. Twelve states are split, and Nebraska is nonpartisan.
In some ways, Democrats are suffering from too much of a good thing: The party’s victories since 2004 eroded GOP gains from the 1990s but made it that much harder to find opportunities for growth now.
“We’re doing a little more defense than we have, and a little less offense,” said Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, chairman of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, a national group that has raised more than $6 million to spend on legislative races in the past two years.
Republicans see cause for hope, though they make a point to avoid national issues because polls show widespread dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans in Congress.
“You certainly can’t omit or be unaware of the national environment. But if you run your race on local issues, you can separate yourself very easily,” said Carrie Cantrell with the Republican State Leadership Committee, which provides cash and other resources to help win legislative seats.
Forty-four states will hold legislative elections next month, with 5,824 seats — or 79 percent of all legislative seats — before the voters.
“In an environment that seems to favor Democrats across the board in 2008, legislatures could deliver a bright spot for Republicans,” said Tim Storey, an elections expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures. “If Democrats do gain seats, it will truly reflect a landslide by the party and would really be an indicator of this turnout machine.”
Among the most closely watched states:
— New York, where Democrats are only two seats away from a majority in the state Senate. If they win, it would be the first time Democrats have held all three decision-making parts of government — governor, Assembly and Senate — since 1935.
— Pennsylvania, where Republicans need only to pick up one seat to take back control of the House and dominate the entire Legislature.
— Montana, where control could flip either way or remain split. Democrats lead the Senate with a two-seat margin, while Republicans hold the House by just one seat.
Other states where one party could take control include Delaware, Indiana, Michigan and Oklahoma. Democrats also see opportunities to gain power in the Ohio House and Wisconsin Assembly.
In New York, Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith said Obama is having a “tremendous impact” on the effort to gain two seats and take power, citing voter registration and Democratic enthusiasm in four critical districts. “This is our best chance,” he said.
The interest spreads beyond state lines. For instance, national groups that advocate for gay rights and their supporters have contributed money to the state Senate effort. Both the Assembly and Democratic Gov. David Paterson have expressed support for same-sex marriage.
In conservative Texas, Republicans hold the Legislature and all statewide offices, and polls show strong support for John McCain. But Democrats say their candidates are doing well, and there is a chance to win the House.
These contests also attract national attention and cash because of the power state legislatures have to redraw the maps of Congress. Though redistricting won’t begin in earnest until after the 2010 Census, when population changes require new congressional lines, maneuvering has already begun.
Gronstal said he has already been in “very serious discussions” with Democratic leaders in Congress about which states should be targeted now and in the 2010 election for redistricting purposes. “I describe it as who gets to get the crayons to draw the lines.”
In New England, every state legislature is now in Democratic hands. But in Maine, Republicans see a chance to pick up one seat and take power in the Senate.
Among other issues, GOP candidates in Maine are running on frustration with the state’s health care reform, championed by the Democratic governor. Shortfalls in the program spurred new taxes on beer, wine and soft drinks. The tax increase passed 18-17, with majority Democrats and minority Republicans voting in blocs.
“We have a formula that works, which is local race, local issues. Stay completely away from this nationalization of the races,” said Roy Lenardson, a political consultant for Republican candidates. That seems wise, considering that recent Maine polls put the Democratic presidential ticket ahead by an average 16 percentage points, according to realclearpolitics.com.
“This notion of the Obama rain washing in all the Democrats, I think that’s a secret fear,” he said. “On the other hand … this notion that Maine is a down-ticket place, where once you pick Obama you go down the ballot — no.”
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Protesting pastors back candidates from the pulpit
Date: 9/28/2008 4:03 PM
By DINESH RAMDE
Associated Press Staff Writer
WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) _ Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.
“I’m telling you straight up, I would choose life,” Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.
“I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin,” he said. “But friends, it’s your choice to make, it’s not my choice. I won’t be in the voting booth with you.”
All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.
Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Thirty-three were chosen, in part for “strategic criteria related to litigation” Stanley wouldn’t discuss.
Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain “holds more to a biblical world view.”
He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.
“The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it’s a First Amendment issue,” Hice said. “To say the church can’t deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, “As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.”
“It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits,” Blair said in an interview.
Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition.
“The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.
Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month’s Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.
Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with “legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.”
Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be “a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation.” That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.
The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.
Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly — a sometimes murky line.
The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”
The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.
The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.
Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”
Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.
Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.
___
Associated Press writer Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock and AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By DINESH RAMDE
Associated Press Staff Writer
WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) _ Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.
“I’m telling you straight up, I would choose life,” Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.
“I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin,” he said. “But friends, it’s your choice to make, it’s not my choice. I won’t be in the voting booth with you.”
All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.
Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Thirty-three were chosen, in part for “strategic criteria related to litigation” Stanley wouldn’t discuss.
Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain “holds more to a biblical world view.”
He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.
“The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it’s a First Amendment issue,” Hice said. “To say the church can’t deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, “As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.”
“It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits,” Blair said in an interview.
Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition.
“The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.
Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month’s Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.
Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with “legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.”
Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be “a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation.” That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.
The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.
Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly — a sometimes murky line.
The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”
The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.
The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.
Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”
Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.
Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.
___
Associated Press writer Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock and AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
