Welcome to the Friday, Nov. 22, Brew.
By: Mercedes Yanora
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Historical U.S. House results during presidential cycles
- Nevadans may initiatives on teacher strikes and attorney contingency fees in 2026
- Did you know that while 46 state legislatures meet every year, just four states—Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas—convene only in odd-numbered years?
Historical U.S. House results during presidential cycles
Since 1920, the presidency has changed partisan control in 13 out of 27 elections. Democrats accomplished this feat six times (1932, 1960, 1976, 1992, 2008, and 2020), while Republicans did the same seven times (1920, 1952, 1968, 1980, 2000, 2016, and 2024).
How did these changes in partisan control of the presidency affect U.S. House elections? In three of those elections (which include this year’s House races), Democrats and Republicans lost fewer than 10 House members while the other party won the White House.
In five presidential election years, the party that won the presidency still had losses in the House. This happened in:
- 1960: John F. Kennedy (D) won the presidency, and Republicans gained 21 House districts
- 1992: Bill Clinton (D) won, and Republicans gained nine districts
- 2000: George W. Bush (R) won, and Democrats gained one district
- 2016: Donald Trump (R) won, and Democrats gained six districts
- 2020: Joe Biden (D) won, and Republicans gained 14 districts
But what of the elections where one party lost 20 or more House seats? As mentioned above, eight of 13 presidential elections included House elections, in which the party that lost the presidency also experienced losses in the House. In five of those elections, the party that lost the presidential election also lost 20 or more House elections (1920, 1932, 1952, 1980, and 2008). But in only two of those elections, the party that lost the presidency also had enough House losses to represent a wave (1920 and 1932).
Wave elections
A wave election occurs when one party makes significant electoral gains. For an election to qualify as a wave in the House, the opposing party must win at least 48 House districts.
In our 2018 report on wave elections from 1918 to 2016, which spans Woodrow Wilson’s (D) second midterm to Donald Trump’s (R) first presidential election, 11 of the 50 general elections for the House qualified as wave elections. That means there were 11 elections in which the president’s party lost at least 48 House districts.
Six of these 11 wave elections happened in a president’s first midterm election. According to FiveThirtyEight, there are three major explanations for the “presidential party’s midterm curse”: a reversion to the mean, a surge and decline in voter turnout, and a presidential penalty. On the last two points, FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley and Nathaniel Rakich write:
“Midterm elections consistently have lower turnout than presidential contests, and studies have found that, with all else being equal, the average voter from the out party is more likely to vote in a midterm election than the average voter from the presidential party … Hatred is a powerful motivator in politics, and accordingly, those who oppose the incumbent party tend to be more motivated to show up and register their frustration with the status quo. … But probably the most compelling explanation for the midterm curse is the ‘presidential penalty,’ whereby some voters change their minds and vote against the president’s party. … The motivation to switch sides may boil down to the concept of ‘balancing,’ wherein a small but significant portion of the electorate chooses to vote against the White House party as a check on its power. … This penalty could also be broadly interpreted as a referendum on the party in power, but studies disagree as to just how much midterm results are a reaction to how people feel the country is doing.”
Republicans under Herbert Hoover (R) experienced more of a tsunami, with 97 House districts lost in 1932, while Lyndon B. Johnson (D) and Gerald Ford’s (R) parties were hit by a milder tropical storm, with 48 House districts lost in 1966 and 1974, respectively.
The presidential party lost a median of six districts across the 50 House elections. The average loss was 14.
Nevadans may decide initiatives on teacher strikes and attorney contingency fees in 2026
The 2024 elections may have just wrapped up, but in Nevada, we had a deadline this week for qualifying 2026 ballot measures. Two campaigns submitted signatures before the Nov. 20 deadline for indirect initiated state statutes.
The Nevadans for Fair Recovery PAC submitted 206,313 signatures on Sept. 11 for an initiative that would limit the contingency fees attorneys can charge or receive in civil cases to 20% of any amounts recovered. In Nevada, most civil cases do not limit an attorney’s contingent fee percentages, however, in medical malpractice cases, attorney fees are limited to 35% of any recovery, and private attorney fees contracted to represent the state are limited to 25%.
Another campaign, A Teacher In Every Classroom PAC, submitted signatures earlier this week for an initiative that would exempt public school teachers and other certain education personnel from the prohibition on strikes. In 1969, Nevada passed a law making it illegal for local governmental employees, including public school teachers, to go on strike.
One other initiative, which would have established an annual cap on interest rates for certain loans, including payday loans, was also cleared for signature gathering, however, according to the Clark County Election Department, they did not submit signatures by the deadline.
Nevadans who want to place a statute on the ballot do so through the indirect initiative process. If the secretary of state verifies enough valid signatures (in this case 102,362), the initiative is sent to the state legislature for approval. The initiative becomes law if the Legislature approves it and the governor signs it. If this does not happen, it goes on the ballot in the next general election.
For the two indirect initiatives mentioned above, voters may see them on the ballot in 2026, depending on the outcome of the initial review and subsequent legislative process.
There are currently seven measures confirmed for the ballot in 2026—two in California, one in Michigan, one in Missouri, one in Oklahoma, and two in Nevada.
Voters already approved the two measures on the ballot in Nevada on Nov. 5, 2024—Question 6 (64%-36%), which would provide for a state constitutional right to an abortion, and Question 7 (73%-27%), which would require photo identification to vote. In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved in two even-numbered election years, meaning that Questions 6 and 7 need to be approved in 2024 and 2026 to amend the Nevada Constitution.
The next signature deadlines in other states for citizen initiatives are in Washington, Ohio, and Maine, all for the 2025 ballot. They are:
- Dec. 27: For Ohio, campaigns must submit the first round of 124,046 valid signatures.
- Jan. 3, 2025: For Washington, campaigns must submit at least 324,516 valid signatures.
- Jan. 23, 2025: For Maine, campaigns must submit at least 67,682 valid signatures.
Currently, no measures have been certified for statewide ballots in 2025.
Did you know that while 46 state legislatures meet every year, just four states—Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas—convene only in odd-numbered years?
In 2025, lawmakers in all 50 states will meet to conduct the business of the state—voting on legislation and setting state priorities on taxation, education, and many other issues. The length of a session, which varies among the states, may be set by a state’s constitution, a statute, or the legislature. Additionally, governors or the legislature can call special—or extraordinary—sessions to focus on specific subjects during or after a state’s regular session.
Stay tuned next week for a Brew story looking ahead to when next year’s sessions are scheduled to begin.
Learn more about state legislative sessions here.