archived: 2 - 8 Jul, 2006         Back                 Next

                        WHAT GOES AROUND … 

Progressive Democrats are anxious about the impending vote on an increase in the State minimum wage.   Rightfully so!  

The Asheville Citizen-Times editorially expresses legitimate concerns: 

In early June the House approved a separate bill to increase the minimum wage by $1. The Senate had also approved the increase, but as part of its budget bill. With the budget ready for approval . . . Thursday without the minimum wage provision, one of the two options for getting the law changed this year evaporates.

 

Hope remains that the Senate, as the House has already done, will approve a separate bill.

 

Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, says he feels confident that will happen.

 

“The votes are there to pass it,” Nesbitt said. “The Democrats are united on that issue.”

 

Democrats hold a 29-21 Senate majority. Gov. Mike Easley, also a Democrat, backs the bill.

 

We hope he’s right, but with the legislative session winding down, there’s cause for concern. 

House Democratic Party leaders stripped the minimum wage provision from the State Budget in a desire to pass a “clean budget.”  In doing so, the House is now forcing a direct vote on the minimum wage. In the Senate, that could be problematical.  

There are a number of conservative Democrats who are in swing Districts this November who may not be willing to pass a minimum wage increase “clean.”  In particular, there could be a movement among five or six Democrats to amend the “straight” $1.00 increase in the House passed bill by offering, for example, an amendment to exclude teenage workers.   

Several points should be considered: 

First, had the minimum wage stayed in the State budget, conservative Democrats in the Senate would have voted for the budget despite the minimum wage increase because the budget does contain some tax cuts that are popular among conservatives of both Parties.  Conservative Democrats will now get their tax cuts and have an opportunity to offer amendments to the budget bill that would not have been offered had the minimum wage remained in the State budget. Will conservative Democrats seize the opportunity?  Has legislative reform endangered progressive legislation?

 

Second, IF Republican Senate Caucus “locks down” their members to vote against the minimum wage or vote for amendments to weaken the bill; it would take only five Democrats to cross Party lines to weaken the minimum wage.  Will Republican leaders attempt to “lock down” their caucus? 

Here is the rub.  The Democratic Caucus is not in a position to “lock down” its members.  Recall that five progressive Democrats refused to vote for the North Carolina Education lottery and no Republican was willing to vote for the lottery.  The “lottery five” as the Democrats became to be known, were heavily lobbied by the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate and Executive Branch to vote for the lottery – to no avail.  More importantly, none of the “lottery five” was punished by the Democratic Party leadership for defying the majority will of the Senate Democratic Caucus.   

TPJ, noted that a) Republicans in North Carolina once ran on the slogan “vote for the man and not the Party,” but the lottery demonstrated that the Senate Republican Caucus would not tolerate deviation from the Party line and b) the two Republicans who eventually “walked” were, in fact, punished by their Party.  It reflects one of the critical differences between the Parties; the Republican Party would deprive an elected official the freedom to vote on issues as that official believes represents their constituents. 

The insistence of progressive Democrats to vote against the lottery may now weaken the North Carolina minimum wage.  If progressive Democratic Party Senators were not punished for their vote; the Democratic Senate Caucus cannot threaten to punish any conservative Democrats who fail to follow the majority of Democrats in the Senate who will vote to pass the minimum wage without diminution in its application.   

IF conservative Democrats support amendments, two issues will immediately arise: 

First, can progressive Democrats rail against conservative Democrats who bolt the Party on particular issues while adamantly supporting progressive Democrats who bolt the majority will of the Caucus on other issues?

 

Second, will the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate and the Executive Branch pressure conservatives for their votes as intensely as progressive Democrats were lobbied on the lottery? 

What went around in the lottery may come around on the minimum wage.  The Senate will finally pass the State budget today; and the minimum wage will be ripe for vote.  A minimum wage will pass, but will it be “clean.”

_____________________________________________

UPDATED: July 4, 2006 

                        THE SPLIT WIDENS 

The split in the Republican Party is widening.  The latest: 

Conservative businessman Art Pope funneled money into a political group to criticize lawmakers he thinks sold out the Republican Party. Now, those lawmakers are fighting back.

 

"He's filled with venom and truly wants to control the entire Republican Party," said Rep. Julia Howard, R-Davie.

 

Howard retained her seat in the house despite Pope-funded campaign criticism. Rep. Stephen Laroque, R-Lenoir, lost by a handful of votes. He partially blames Pope.

 

"I think he's a spoiled little rich kid spending Mom and Daddy's money to buy legislative seats, and that's what he's doing and he's already bought some seats here," said Laroque. "He owns certain legislators in the House."             

Pope’s list of Republicans to “hit” may have to get a lot larger this week.  State House and Senate Budge Conferees have agreed to a budget that will be voted on this week.  Six Republican Senators voted for the budget in their chamber and a majority of Republicans voted for the budget fashioned in their chamber.   

Will Republicans vote for the reconciled version of the budget?  Or, will Art Pope have to dig deeper into his vault?   

_____________________________________________

                        COMING TO THE PARTY  

The State Democratic Party Convention that was held in June was a highly successful affair for Democrats.  Last week, TPJ focused on the contrast between the Democrats, whose convention was open to all, with the Republicans closing of their convention to the media, except to hear “approved” speakers.   

For Democrats, an important issue is who is coming to the Democratic Party State Convention – or more precisely, who is not.  The press gave some attention to the fact that Gov. Easley did not attend the convention: 

There are still strains evident in the Democratic Party.

 

Gov. Mike Easley was a no-show, as has been his practice at party functions since Jerry Meek defeated his handpicked candidate for party chairman last year. 

The larger story is that so many elected Democratic Party leaders did not attend the convention.  From the Council of State, Commissioner of Insurance Jim Long attended and spoke briefly to the delegates and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, who regularly attends, sent her regrets as she was out of state on official duties.  Otherwise, no other Council of State member attended.

A very small number of legislators were in attendance.  For example, State Senator Doug Berger from District 7; Franklin, Vance, Granville and Warren Counties appeared.  There were several others.  Conspicuously absent were any members of the Senate or House Democratic leadership. 

Democrats are missing some very real opportunities.  The convention was held over several days with training events for local Democratic Party leaders preceding the Convention.  Providing training opportunities prior to the Convention is an excellent idea that should be extended to future conventions. 

More elected Democrats should be included in the convention process.  These are TPJ’s recommendations for events prior to the convention: 

1.       A forum for members of the Council of State to appear and brief delegates to the initiatives in their respective agencies and the issues they believe North Carolina must address.

 

2.       A session for the Democratic Party leadership in the State House.  The session would give the Democratic leadership an opportunity to highlight their accomplishments and the issues they foresee facing North Carolina.

 

3.       A similar session for the Democratic Party leadership in the State Senate.

 

4.       Chairs of several committees could be invited to address particular legislative initiatives of particular interest.

An even more ambitious project would be a luncheon for the legislative leadership.  Consideration should be given to tying the luncheon to a fundraiser for the Senate and House campaign committees.  

Incorporating elected leaders of the Democratic Party into the process achieves many purposes: 

1. It establishes much need rapport between the Party organization and elected leaders;
    

2. Elected leaders can educate delegates on the issues before their agencies and the General Assembly, the challenges and opportunities. It would, perhaps, provide mutual understanding and commitment to purpose.
    

3. It may improve attendance at conventions.  The first Sanford-Hunt Dinner was an obvious success.  It generated much enthusiasm and former Gov. Hunt delivered powerful messages for Democrats.  It was the biggest “draw” of the convention.  Including more elected leaders may also increase the importance of the convention and attendance.
    

4. Most importantly, it portends bringing the Party and its elected leaders into more unified messages for the citizens that we ultimately serve.

The new multi-day format for the Democratic Party is an excellent improvement, full of possibilities.  These recommendations may provide even more opportunities.  

                        A BRAND OR BRANDED? 

This week, TPJ continues its analysis of voter registration in North Carolina.   

Critical to the mid-term legislative elections in North Carolina is the fact that from January through June 2006, Republicans have gained a net 5,015 more registrations than Democrats statewide. This equates to a monthly average loss of approximately 836 voters.  From May to June alone, typically “slow months” in politics, Democrats lost 623 registrations to Republicans.     

A number of TPJ readers have provided valuable questions and comments to our previous articles.  It appears that an impression is forming that Democrats are losing ground in voter registration because of a) increasing Republican registration and b) the rise of independent voter registrations. The facts support only half of the impression; independent voter registration is rising as a percentage total registrations, Republican registration is not. 

This article concentrates first on the macro perspective of voter registration in North Carolina and then address micro concerns related to the upcoming legislative election cycle.  

            The Macro  

The TPJ chart below clearly portrays the political realignment of the relative strength of the parties over the last 25 years in North Carolina. 

Several important facts are apparent: 

1. Democrats have lost ground in the percentage of the Party to the total number of registered voters in every biennium since 1980; from 72.40% of registered voters to 45.75% in 2006.
    

2. While Republicans gained in the percentage of registration from 23.50% to 34.63% during the same period, Republican percentage has remained essentially flat since 2000.
    

3. The obvious conclusion is that Independent registrations are increasing; from 4.10% to 19.62% over the 25 year period.

The percent of loss in Democratic registrations biennially is reflected in the chart immediately below: 

One would expect both parties’ performance in registration to be at its zenith during presidential election cycles when public attention is most directed at elections.  Contrary to that hypothesis, a pattern of greatest loss in Democratic Party registrations emerges in presidential election cycles since 1998.   

By contrast, Republican percentage increases in registration have been smaller, but more uniform as reflected in the chart immediately below.  With the exception of the period 2000-2002, Republicans have increased registrations in every biennial reporting period, even if the increases have been less than one percent since 1994. 

Republican registration conforms to TPJ’s hypothesis of increased activity in presidential election years.  Republican percentage of registration since 1998 increases most in presidential election years and somewhat less in off-year elections.   

The core conclusions are rather obvious from these statistics.  First, the Republican Party emergence in voter registrations of the 1980’s, built around President Reagan, ended with President Clinton’s election in 1992 and has particularly subsided since the election of President Bush in 2000, Republicans increasing their percentage of voter registrations by a mere .13% in six years.  The Republican “brand” is obviously does not carry the same appeal as during President Reagan’s years.  

Second, the Democratic Party as a “brand” continues in decline.  A substantial and presently growing number of voters are registering Independent to the detriment of the Democrats.  Stated another way, Republicans are holding their own, Democrats are not.   

Third, the presidential election years demonstrate a critical point.  Interest in politics does rise during presidential elections, with Republican registrations rising but Independent voter registrations rising even more.  Democrats lose greatest ground during presidential years because Democrats cannot keep pace with Republicans and Independents.  The Democratic Party is a very poor third.  

Fourth, nothing in the statistics above suggest that the Democrats will stem their decline as a percentage of all registered voters. Even as Bush’s administration has reached new lows in public approval, the Democratic Party decline continues.  

Fifth, our working hypothesis is that Rove and his Republican minions have done an excellent job in branding the Democratic Party as weak and incapable of governing effectively.  While voters are not joining the Republican Party in large numbers, Democrats are not currently a viable alternative to most voters.   

            The Micro   

From 2004 to 2005, Democrats lost in percentage of voter registration in the vast majority of State Senate and State House Districts.  It is a stunning result with obvious implications for the future of the Democratic Party. 

2005 voter registrations were used for the comparison because registration data is available for that year by District. 2006 data is not yet available by District, but only by county, making it impossible to fashion correct statistics for counties that are split. 

The categories should be self-explanatory, but we note that the Dem% Change column only shows the gain or loss in percentage of Democratic Party registration in the one year period analyzed.  Republican and Independent changes have not been tracked, even though readers may do so with some basic math.  Finally, we have, in the District column, highlighted in purple those Districts in which the 2004 election victory, Democrat or Republican, was within ten percentage points of the opposing candidate. 

In the Senate, Democrats lost voter registration percentage in every District save four; two in which Democrats gain 1% and two in which Democrats did not lose in percentage.