by Zach Holden and Gus Voss | 2014-12-23

Overview

At their core, elections are the process of voters making choices about who will govern them. Yet an analysis of legislative general elections in 2011-2012 shows that voters often did not have choices. In 2011 and 2012, only 66 percent of legislative seats were contested. And even contested seats don’t necessarily indicate meaningful competition. For instance, only 24 percent of legislative races were monetarily competitive in 2011–2012.

These figures are in line with the historical averages that the National Institute on Money in State Politics has documented since the 2001-2002 cycle. These statistics provide insight into how the flow of campaign cash affects the options available to voters, impacting not only the outcomes, but who even enters the fray.

The Institute’s analysis of 2011 and 2012 legislative races revealed:

Sixty-six percent of the legislative seats were contested, on par with proportions in the preceding ten years.

Nearly one fourth of the legislative races were monetarily competitive. The percent of monetarily competitive races has held remarkably steady since 2001 (see table below) between 20 and 24 percent.

States with more incumbents generally featured fewer monetarily competitive races.

States with less expensive races tended to have more monetarily competitive seats.

States with public financing options tended to have more monetarily competitive seats.

Table 1: Contested and Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats in 49 States,* 2001-2012 Elections Percent of Seats Contested Percent of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races 2011-2012 66% 24% 2009-2010 73% 23% 2007-2008 66% 20% 2005-2006 68% 22% 2003-2004 68% 22% 2001-2002 70% 21% 12-Year Average 69% 22%

*The total number of states with legislative elections varies from 47 to 49, depending on the cycle because of variances in term lengths. New Jersey is consistently excluded because of the issues discussed in the methodology section.

Methodology

The Institute analyzed campaign contributions raised by candidates who ran for legislative seats in 2011 and 2012. Three states were excluded: New Jersey’s multi-candidate committees make it impossible to compare the fundraising of individual candidates, and neither Maryland nor Alabama held regularly scheduled legislative elections during the 2011 and 2012.

This report examines and compares the money raised by legislative candidates who ran in regularly scheduled general elections in 47 states. Not included are special elections or money raised by candidates who lost in primaries or conventions, or who withdrew, died, or were disqualified before the general election.

In this report, a seat is a legislative position. A race is a contest among candidates running against each other for a seat. A case where candidates run against each other and the top two vote-getters win is considered one race for two seats. A race in which at least one candidate lost is considered contested. In some states, multiple seats are won in one race. In that case, if the number of candidates equals the number of winners, the multi-seat race is considered uncontested.

To determine whether a race is monetarily competitive, the Institute compared the top fundraiser’s total against the next-largest fundraiser’s total. A single-seat race was considered monetarily competitive if the top fundraiser raised no more than twice the amount of the next-highest fundraiser. To determine the monetary competitiveness of multi-seat elections, the Institute identified the number of top fundraisers equal to the number of seats up for election in a given race. If the next-highest fundraiser raised at least half the average of those candidates, it is deemed a competitive race. For example, a race in which three seats are up for election would be competitive if the fourth-leading fundraiser raised at least half as much as the average of the top three.

An incumbent is defined as a sitting office-holder either seeking reelection to the same seat or seeking election to an open seat.

An open seat means the sitting incumbent is not running for reelection to that office.

The Institute calculated the average cost of each state’s legislative elections by adding the amounts raised by the top fundraisers for each seat, and dividing that total by the number of seats up for election in that state. In multi-seat elections, the Institute averaged the totals of all candidates who qualified as top fundraisers.

Contested Legislative Seats

Just two-thirds of the 6,465 seats up for election in 47 states were contested during the 2011 and 2012 general elections, comparable to the preceding ten years.

About four of every ten legislative incumbents who sought reelection were uncontested in the general elections.

Table 2: Contested Legislative Seats in General Elections in 49 States,* 2001–2012 Election Cycle Number of Contested Seats Number of Seats up for Election Percent of Seats Contested 2011-2012 4,256 6,465 66% 2009-2010 4,517 6,228 73% 2007-2008 4,178 6,289 66% 2005-2006 4,271 6,237 68% 2003-2004 4,280 6,280 68% 2001-2002 4,459 6,356 70% Total 25,961 37,855 69%

*The total number of states with legislative elections varies from 47 to 49 depending on the cycle because of variances in term lengths. New Jersey is consistently excluded because of the issues discussed in the methodology section.

Georgia and South Carolina had the lowest percentages of contested legislative seats: voters had a choice in just 23 percent of Georgia elections, while South Carolina voters had a choice in just 31 percent. In contrast, Michigan and Colorado voters had the highest percentage of contested general elections, with 99 percent of legislative seats contested in each state.

Nine states, primarily in the South, saw fewer than half of their legislative seats contested on the general ballot: Georgia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Illinois, Mississippi, Virginia, and Kentucky.

Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats

Nearly one fourth of the legislative seats were monetarily competitive in the 2011 and 2012 elections. States with public campaign financing and relatively inexpensive elections were the most monetarily competitive. There also was a slight negative relationship between the percentage of seats with incumbents and levels of monetary competitiveness in that state.

Figure 1: Average Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats in General Elections in 49 States, 2001-2012

Table 3: Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats in General Elections in 49 States, 2001-2012 Election Cycle Number of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races Number of Seats Up for Election Percent of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races 2011-2012 1,534 6,465 24% 2009-2010 1,444 6,228 23% 2007-2008 1,277 6,289 20% 2005-2006 1,351 6,237 22% 2003-2004 1,405 6,280 22% 2001-2002 1,310 6,356 21% Total 8,321 37,855 Average 22%

Table 4: Top Ten Monetarily Competitive States, 2011 and 2012 State Number of Seats in Competitive Races Number of Seats up for Election Percent of Seats in Competitive Races Maine* 132 186 71% New Hampshire 298 424 70% Connecticut* 95 187 51% Arizona* 43 90 48% Minnesota** 96 201 48% Alaska 22 59 37% North Dakota 24 69 35% South Dakota 35 105 33% Nebraska 8 25 32% Arkansas 41 135 30%

*Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine have full public financing options for legislative candidates.

** Minnesota has a partial public financing option for legislative elections.

The states with the least expensive races tended to be more monetarily competitive than the states with expensive races. New Hampshire was a perfect example of the trend: its top fundraisers had the smallest averages for 2011 and 2012 legislative races and it had the second-largest percentage of competitive seats.

Nine of the ten most monetarily competitive states ranked within the lower half of states in terms of the average raised by top fundraisers. Nebraska was the most expensive of those ten monetarily competitive states: the top-fundraisers’ average was $119,586.

Figure 2: More Money = Less Competition

Wyoming stood out as an exception to the trend of inexpensive races featuring greater monetary competitiveness.The average raised by top fundraisers in Wyoming races was a measly $9,606, yet only 8 percent of the seats up for election were in monetarily competitive races, ranking Wyoming as tied for 44th in the nation. Only 36 percent of the seats up for election in Wyoming were contested in the general election, the third lowest level in the nation.

States with public funding programs for legislative candidates tended toward more robust monetary competition.

Three of the five most monetarily competitive states (Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine) provided full public funding programs for legislative candidates in the 2012 elections.

Hawaii and Minnesota each provided partial public funding programs for legislative candidates in the 2012 elections.

Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, and Minnesota were among the five most monetarily competitive states.

Another, less dramatic, relationship exists between incumbency and monetary competitiveness. A comparison of the proportion of seats in which an incumbent is running with the percentage of competitive seats shows that states with relatively more incumbents are generally less competitive. Also, the major outliers on the graph below mostly come from states such as Alaska—which has relatively inexpensive elections—or from states that have public financing, such as Maine. This suggests that any relationship between incumbency and competitiveness is tempered by the other links between the cost of the election and the availability of public funds.

Figure 3: More Incumbents = Less Competition

An Examination of Monetarily Uncompetitive States

Seven states saw monetarily competitive races in fewer than 10 percent of their seats—meaning that more than 90 percent of the races in these states were essentially a shoo-in. Texas illustrates the correlation of expensive elections with low monetary competitiveness. Ranking as the second most-expensive state (behind California) in which to run a legislative campaign, Texas also was the second least-competitive state, with competitive races for only 6 percent of the state’s legislative seats. (The top legislative fundraisers for Texas seats averaged $526,064.)

Georgia and South Carolina illustrate the correlation between fewer contested seats and lower monetary competitiveness. These two states had the lowest percentage of legislative seats contested in the general election. As it is impossible for an uncontested race to be competitive, it is not surprising that Georgia and South Carolina were among the ten least monetarily competitive states.

Table 5: Ten Least Monetarily Competitive States in General Elections, 2011 and 2012 State Number of Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats Number of Legislative Seats Up For Election Percent of Seats in Competitive Races Georgia 7 235 3% Texas 10 181 6% Florida 12 160 8% Wyoming 6 75 8% South Carolina 14 170 8% North Carolina 14 170 8% Oklahoma 11 125 9% Missouri 18 180 10% New York 24 213 11% Mississippi 20 174 11%

Conclusion

During the 2011–2012 elections, two-thirds of legislative seats were contested, and only 24 percent were monetarily competitive, similar to historical averages. Inexpensive elections and public financing seemed to yield greater competitiveness, while incumbency tended to lower competitiveness. These statistics illustrate the degree to which incumbency and the influx of campaign cash affects the choices available to voters.

Appendix A: Contested and Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats, by State, 2011 & 2012

Figure 4: Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats in 47 States, by State, 2011 & 2012

Table 6: Contested and Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats in 47 States, by State, 2011 & 2012 State Number of Seats up for Election Percent of Seats Contested Percent of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races Rank Among the States Alaska 59 71% 37% 6 Arizona 90 69% 48% 4 Arkansas 135 53% 30% 10 California 100 98% 23% 15 Colorado 85 99% 28% 12 Connecticut 187 81% 51% 3 Delaware 62 61% 23% 16 Florida 160 65% 8% 45 Georgia 235 23% 3% 47 Hawaii 76 63% 17% 26 Idaho 105 78% 20% 23 Illinois 177 44% 14% 33 Indiana 125 73% 22% 17 Iowa 126 77% 23% 14 Kansas 165 72% 22% 18 Kentucky 119 48% 14% 32 Louisiana 144 56% 15% 29 Maine 186 96% 71% 1 Massachusetts 200 38% 15% 31 Michigan 110 99% 13% 35 Minnesota 201 97% 48% 5 Mississippi 174 44% 11% 38 Missouri 180 53% 10% 40 Montana 126 82% 29% 11 Nebraska 25 84% 32% 9 Nevada 54 81% 20% 21 New Hampshire 424 90% 70% 2 New Mexico 112 51% 21% 20 New York 213 72% 11% 39 North Carolina 170 59% 8% 42 North Dakota 69 87% 35% 7 Ohio 117 86% 16% 27 Oklahoma 125 38% 9% 41 Oregon 76 86% 25% 13 Pennsylvania 228 53% 13% 36 Rhode Island 113 58% 16% 28 South Carolina 170 31% 8% 42 South Dakota 105 70% 33% 8 Tennessee 115 58% 13% 34 Texas 181 61% 6% 46 Utah 90 86% 12% 37 Vermont 182 57% 20% 24 Virginia 138 46% 15% 30 Washington 124 80% 20% 22 West Virginia 117 79% 21% 19 Wisconsin 115 75% 18% 25 Wyoming 75 36% 8% 44 Nationwide 6,465 66% 24%

Alabama and Maryland did not have legislative elections in 2011 or 2012. New Jersey’s multi-candidate committees make it impossible to assign fundraising figures to individual candidates.

Appendix B: Average Raised by Top-Funded Legislative Candidates in 47 States, 2011 & 2012

The average raised by the top fundraisers for each seat up for election illustrates the link between relatively inexpensive campaigns and increased monetary competitiveness.

Table 7: Average Raised by Top-Funded Legislative Candidates in 47 States, 2011 & 2012* State Rate of Monetary Competitiveness Average Raised by Highest Legislative Fundraisers Rank Among the States Alaska 37% $65,978 28 Arizona 48% $48,898 34 Arkansas 30% $65,584 29 California 23% $864,811 1 Colorado 28% $71,301 26 Connecticut 51% $42,022 37 Delaware 23% $43,489 36 Florida 8% $234,632 9 Georgia 3% $80,305 23 Hawaii 17% $67,806 27 Idaho 20% $31,783 39 Illinois 14% $437,193 3 Indiana 22% $126,900 15 Iowa 23% $141,223 14 Kansas 22% $52,725 32 Kentucky 14% $84,911 22 Louisiana 15% $198,108 10 Maine 71% $10,315 43 Massachusetts 15% $85,248 21 Michigan 13% $106,888 19 Minnesota 48% $37,936 38 Mississippi 11% $54,222 31 Missouri 10% $121,242 17 Montana 29% $12,313 42 Nebraska 32% $119,586 18 Nevada 20% $188,327 11 New Hampshire 70% $4,508 47 New Mexico 21% $62,364 30 New York 11% $249,530 7 North Carolina 8% $162,599 12 North Dakota 35% $7,987 45 Ohio 16% $310,648 5 Oklahoma 9% $104,250 20 Oregon 25% $251,776 6 Pennsylvania 13% $235,657 8 Rhode Island 16% $30,853 40 South Carolina 8% $74,705 24 South Dakota 33% $19,439 41 Tennessee 13% $122,105 16 Texas 6% $526,064 2 Utah 12% $51,259 33 Vermont 20% $4,974 46 Virginia 15% $330,190 4 Washington 20% $145,582 13 West Virginia 21% $44,780 35 Wisconsin 18% $72,681 25 Wyoming 8% $9,606 44 Nationwide 24% $131,672

Alabama and Maryland did not have legislative elections in 2011 or 2012. New Jersey’s multi-candidate committees make it impossible to assign fundraising figures to individual candidates.