CategoryUncategorized

469 state legislators lost in 2018, the most since 2012

Four hundred sixty-nine incumbent state legislators lost in 2018 primaries or general elections out of the 4,952 legislators that filed for re-election.
 
The 469 losses were the most since 2012 when 488 legislators were defeated.
 
Overall, the losses include:
  • 119 Democrats
  • 330 Republicans
  • 20 third party or independent legislators
In the November 6 general election, 322 incumbents lost. This was the highest number of general election losses since 2010, when 502 incumbents were defeated. 2018’s general election losses included:
  • 49 Democrats
  • 253 Republicans
  • 20 third party or independent legislators.
In the primaries, 147 incumbents lost, including 70 Democrats and 77 Republicans. In the last four election cycles (2010-2016), only 2012 saw more incumbents lose their primaries—194.
 
Democrats’ 119 incumbent losses was their lowest number since before 2010, while Republicans’ 330 losses was their highest number since 2012. Democrats lost 538 incumbents in 2010, 137 incumbents in 2012, 272 in 2014, and 165 in 2016. Republicans lost 70 incumbents in 2010, 347 in 2012, 125 in 2014, and 187 in 2016.


Forty-six percent of federal and state legislators were successful in bids for other offices in 2018

Twenty-one members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 472 state legislators ran for other elected positions in 2018. Nine (43 percent) House members won election to statewide office, while 217 (46 percent) state legislators successfully won election to a new position.
 
Democratic House members were more successful in their runs than Republicans. Of the 10 Democratic House members who sought statewide office, six (60 percent) won in the general election, while only three of 11 (27 percent) Republican House members won their election.
 
Among state legislators, Republicans were more successful. Forty-eight percent (131 out of 274) of Republican state legislators who ran for another office won election to a new position, while 44 percent (82 out of 185) of Democratic state legislators who ran for another office were successful.
 
For more information, including a listing of the U.S. House members who ran for statewide office and a state-by-state breakdown of the results of state legislators who ran for other offices in 2018, click here: https://ballotpedia.org/Results_of_elected_officials_seeking_other_offices,_2018


Compared to previous midterm cycles, Democrat gains in 2018 smaller than usual

The 2018 election cycle, President Donald Trump’s first midterm, saw gains by the Democratic Party in every federal and state government office except the U.S. Senate. However, compared to the first midterms of Presidents Barack Obama (D) (2010), George W. Bush (R) (2002), and Bill Clinton (D) (1994), Democrats’ 2018 gains were the smallest for every office type except governor.
 
• In the U.S. House, Democrats picked up 41 seats, the lowest number for the out-of-power party since 1994. Republicans gained 64 seats in 2010 and 54 seats in 1994. In 2002, Democrats lost eight seats and they were the out-of-power party. The last time the out-of-power party had lost House seats in a president’s first midterm was 1934.
 
• Democrats lost one Senate seat between 2016 and 2018, the same number they lost between 2000 and 2002. Republicans picked up five Senate seats in both the 1994 and 2010 midterms.
 
• Democrats gained 349 state legislative seats, the lowest for the out-of-power party since 1994. Their six pick-ups in state legislative chambers (five state senates and one state house) are also the lowest since 1994.
 
• In gubernatorial races, Democrats gained seven seats, the most for an out-of-power party since 1994 when Republicans picked up 10. In 2010, Republicans picked up six seats. In 2002 Democrats picked up three seats.
 
All comparisons are between the midterm’s result and the result of the preceding election (i.e. 2018 is compared to the results of 2016). Some results in the U.S. House and state legislatures are still pending.


USDA proposes new rule for SNAP program work requirements

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed a new rule tightening regulations over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) work requirement waivers. The new rule would only grant waivers to SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) if the unemployment rate in certain areas was over 7 percent. The rule also prevents states from combining areas of high and low unemployment to receive waivers for larger geographic areas. Previously, USDA granted waivers to states containing areas with unemployment rates 20 percent above the national average. 
 
The USDA proposed the rule as a response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13828, which directed agencies to strengthen work requirements for work-capable individuals receiving benefits from public assistance programs. The executive order asked agencies to review regulations and guidance documents to see whether they increased self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility.
 
Proposed rules are preliminary versions of a prospective federal agency regulation. If an agency determines that a new regulation is necessary, the agency develops a proposed rule for publication in the Federal Register. After a period of public comment, the agency may determine to revise the proposed rule, abandon the proposal, or move forward to the final rule stage of the rulemaking process.
 
An executive order is a formal command handed down from the president to federal agencies within the executive branch. While executive orders are legally binding, they are not laws; they are instructions on how the executive branch ought to enforce the law. These instructions must line up with existing U.S. laws and the U.S. Constitution.
 
Executive orders differ from other types of executive action, namely presidential proclamations and presidential memorandums. Unlike executive orders, presidential memorandums are not numbered or cataloged, and they do not require the president to cite any authority for their issuance. Proclamations direct the actions of individuals rather than government agencies and are often ceremonial.