ANDTHE UNEXPECTE EXPECTED

D The Rhodes Cook Letter

June 2003 The Rhodes Cook Letter JUNE 2003 / VOL. 4, NO. 3 Contents

The Elections of 2003: The Expected and the Unexpected . . . . 3 Chart: What’s up in 2003...... 4 Chart: Changing Composition of the 108th Congress ...... 4 Chart: The South: Safely Republican at Federal Level ...... 5 Map & Chart: House Seats: States on the Grow ...... 7 Chart: ’ Democratic ‘Misfits’ ...... 9 Map & Charts: Gray Davis’ Decline ...... 11

Democratic Presidential Calendar Taking Shape ...... 12 Map: Tentative 2004 Presidential Primary-Caucus Schedule...... 12 Chart : Tentative 2004 Democratic Calendar and Delegate Totals...... 13

What’s up in 2004 ...... 14

Gubernatorial, House Candidates at the Ballot Box . . . . 15

Subscription Page ...... 16

The Rhodes Cook Letter is published by Rhodes Cook. Web: tion for six issues is $99. Make checks payable to “The Rhodes rhodescook.com. E-mail: [email protected]. Design Cook Letter” and send them, along with your e-mail address, by Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. “The Rhodes Cook Letter” to P.O. Box 574, Annandale, VA. 22003. See the last page of is being published on a bimonthly basis in 2003. A subscrip- this newsletter for a subscription form.

All contents are copyrighted ©2003 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material is welcome with attribution, though the author retains full copyright over the material contained herein.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 2 The Elections of 2003: The Expected and the Unexpected By Rhodes Cook

he world of electoral politics in 2003 could be divided into two categories - the expected and Tthe unexpected. In the former are this year’s regularly scheduled elections – featuring a trio of gubernatorial contests in , Louisiana and Mississippi – as well as the scattered array of special House elections that are continually required in a body of 435 members.

On the other hand, there have been some unexpected electoral developments this year in the nation’s two largest states. Republican leaders in Texas are seeking to force a new round of redis- tricting designed to bring them additional House seats in 2004, while opponents of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in California are mounting a recall movement that could bring a statewide vote as early as this fall.

Both the expected and unexpected events of 2003 could have significant implications.

A successful redistricting effort by Texas Republicans could swing upwards of six House seats from the Democrats to the GOP. That would not only overturn the Democrats’ 17-to-15 edge in the Lone Star state delegation, but transform what is already a comfortable Republican advantage on the south side of Capitol Hill into a commanding one.

The California recall drive is a direct reflection on Davis’ dire political situation, exacerbated by a $38-billion state budget deficit on the heels of a statewide energy crisis. But Davis’ fate could also dramatically affect California’s electoral dynamics, which already may be beginning to change from strongly Democratic to a bit less so.

Meanwhile, this year’s governors’ races, all in the South, offer a test of current voter sentiment in the nation’s most politically volatile region. Once solidly Democratic from presidential voting down to county dogcatcher, the South is now totally dominated by the GOP at the federal level. But the three gubernatorial elections give Democrats the opportunity this fall to begin stemming GOP momentum at a level of electoral politics in the South where the Democrats have remained com- petitive.

Action Completed

emocrats are defending two of the three governorships up this year – including Kentucky, Dwhere primaries May 20 settled the Democratic and Republican nominations to succeed the term-limited incumbent, Democrat Paul Patton.

Political pedigree paid off on the Democratic side, where the winner was state Attorney General , a grandson of “Happy” Chandler (a former governor, senator and major league base- ball commissioner). The younger Chandler finished narrowly ahead of state House Speaker . (Continued on Page 5)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 3 What’s up in 2003

Three Southern states hold gubernatorial elections this year, with the contests in Kentucky and Louisiana for open seats. Only in Mississippi is an incumbent able to seek reelection, with Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove seeking a second term.

Gubernatorial nominations were settled in Kentucky May 20, with state Attorney General Ben Chandler winning the Democratic primary and Rep. triumphing on the GOP side. Republican are seeking to win the governorship of Kentucky for the fi rst time since 1967. Next up: the Mississippi gubernatorial primaries on Aug. 5, featuring Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour on the GOP side and incumbent Musgrove on the Democratic side.

The two special House elections this year were decided in contests in which candidates of all parties ran together on the same ballot. The outcome in the Texas 19th refl ects the results of a runoff between Republicans and .

Governorships Incumbent Primary Runoff General Election Kentucky Paul Patton (D) May 20 - Nov. 4 Louisiana Mike Foster (R) Oct. 4 Nov. 15 - Mississippi Ronnie Musgrove (D) Aug. 5 Aug. 26 Nov. 4 Special House Elections Percent of Total Vote Former Member New Member Election Turnout Dem. Rep. Other Patsy Mink (D) Hawaii 2 Ed Case (D) Jan. 4 75,574 43.7% -- (died Sept. 28, 2002) (R) Randy Texas 19 June 3 56,505 - 50.5% - (resigned May 31, 2003) Neugebauer (R)

The Changing Composition of the 108th Congress

So far, there have been few changes in the membership of the 108th Congress. Sen Frank Murkowski resigned to become governor of and appointed his daughter to fi ll his seat. Democratic Rep. Patsy Mink of Hawaii died and was succeeded by Democrat Ed Case. Republican Rep. Larry Combest of Texas resigned and was succeeded by Republican Randy Neugebauer.

Date and Event House of Representatives Senate

R D Ind. Vac. R D Ind. Vac. Nov. 5, 2002 - ELECTION 229 205 1 51 48 1 Sept. 28, 2002 - Rep. Patsy T. Mink (D-Hawaii 2) dies but is elected posthumously Nov. 5 229 204 1 1

Dec. 2, 2002 - Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) resigns to become governor 50 48 1 1 of Alaska Dec. 20, 2002 - Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) appointed to fi ll her father’s 51 48 1 Senate seat Jan. 4, 2003 - Special election in Hawaii 2nd won by Ed Case (D) 229 205 1 May 31, 2003 - Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas 19) resigns 228 205 1 1 June 3, 2003 - Special election in Texas 19th won by Randy Neugebauer (R) 229 205 1

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 4 (Continued from Page 3)

On the Republican side, though, political lineage was not rewarded, as state Rep. , a son of Kentucky’s last Republican governor, (1967-71), ran a distant third in a primary won handily by U.S. Rep. Ernie Fletcher.

Both primary winners were backed by major elements of their parties, although both had to survive some unusual twists and turns before claiming their nominations. Fletcher lost his initial running mate for lieutenant governor, an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell, when a court ruled that he failed to meet state residency requirements.

Chandler had to fend off an $8 million challenge from wealthy businessman , who abruptly quit the race on the eve of the primary after a spirited ad war with Chandler raised ques- tions about Lunsford’s business practices as a nursing home operator. Lunsford subsequently threw his support to the financially undermanned Richards, who mounted a late surge that came within 5 percentage points of upsetting Chandler.

The contest between Chandler and Fletcher is expected to be The South: Safely Republican at Federal Level, highly competitive, as Competitive in Gubernatorial Races are the gubernatorial contests this fall in Republicans have come to dominate voting across the South for federal offices, but still find Louisiana and Missis- themselves closely contested by the Democrats in gubernatorial contests. This year all three governorships up for grabs are in the South - Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi - and all sippi. three are expected to be highly competitive. The two special Last year, five governorships in the region changed party hands. Republicans picked up statehouses in a trio of states in the Deep South - Alabama, and South Carolina. House elections Democrats gained governorships in and . settled thus far this year, though, have An asterisk (*) indicates that the presidential result is based on the electoral vote in 2000. For other offices, numbers reflect the current total of seats held by each party. The definition of been in one-party the South favored by this publication includes the states of the old Confederacy plus Kentucky districts with no sus- and Oklahoma, 13 states in all. pense about which party would win. In Electoral Votes / Seats January, Democrat Ed Office Republicans Democrats % GOP Case, a cousin of for- President* 163 0 100% mer AOL-Time War- Senate 17 9 65% ner chairman, Steve Case, won the Hawaii House 85 57 60% seat vacated by fel- Governors 76 54% low Democrat Patsy Mink, who died last September.

Case had won a special election in late November to fill the final weeks of Mink’s term in the 107th Congress, and finished first among a field of 44 candidates in the January vote to retain the seat for the 108th Congress. In the staunchly Democratic 2nd District, which includes all of Hawaii outside the populous Honolulu area, Case paced the field with 44% of the vote. The leading Republican in

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 5 the race finished a distant fourth with barely 5 percent of the vote.

The situation was reversed in the special election this spring in the west Texas district long repre- sented by veteran Republican Rep. Larry Combest, who resigned his seat at the end of May. There, Democrats are an endangered species. Two Republicans, land developer Mickey Neugebauer and accountant Mike Conaway, battled neck and neck through the May 3 primary and a June 3 runoff to succeed Combest, with Neugebauer finishing less than 1,000 votes ahead each time.

The district, the Texas 19th, extends from a bit north of Lubbock to a bit south of Midland. It has always been conservative but has not always been Republican. Back in 1978, a young George W. Bush chose the 19th as the site for his political debut. The seat had come open with the retirement of veteran Democratic Rep. George Mahon, and Bush got off to a fast start. He won the Republican primary over a candidate backed by . And with his family connections, as well as his own budding career in the oil and gas industry in Midland, Bush was able to raise nearly $450,000 – a princely sum for a congressional campaign a quarter century ago.

But in the general election, Bush could not fully overcome the image of a wealthy outsider with an Eastern background and Ivy League education. His Democratic opponent, state Sen. , was born and educated in the district. It was, as one observer said, Yale against Texas Tech. And in west Texas, that match up was no contest. The final outcome: Hance 53%, Bush 47%, in the only election the president has ever lost.

Messin’ with Texas

ince then, Texas has become one of the most reliably Republican states in the country. In S1994, Bush ousted Democratic Gov. Ann Richards. In 1998, he was reelected by nearly 1.4 mil- lion votes, the largest margin of victory in any contested gubernatorial election in Texas. Two years later, he carried the state in presidential voting by a similar margin. And in 2002, his GOP successor, Rick Perry, easily won a term of his own as Republicans gained control of both houses of the Texas Legislature.

But court-drawn congressional district lines have left Democrats with a majority of the 32-member House delegation. When states were redistricting before the 2002 election, the Texas House was still in Democratic hands and congressional redistricting was thrown into federal court. It preserved the status quo, giving Republicans the two new seats the state had gained by reapportionment but leaving incumbents with the upper hand elsewhere.

But with the 2002 election providing Texas Republicans with total control of state government, they sought to revisit the issue of congressional redistricting this spring. The move immediately exploded in controversy. States normally redraw their congressional district lines just once a decade to reflect population changes enumerated by the Census. Any subsequent mid-decade line changes have usually been forced by the courts for reasons of population equality or racial justice, and not unilaterally undertaken by state legislatures to press a partisan advantage.

Democrats denounced the GOP offensive as a cynical power play hatched by House Majority Lead- er Tom DeLay to pad GOP numbers on Capitol Hill, a rationale the -area Republican freely admitted.

(Continued on Page 9)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 6 House Seats: States on the Grow

States with more House seats now than ever before

States with as many House seats now as ever before

States past their all-time peak in House seats

House Seats: Highs and Lows by State

About one-third of the states (16, to be precise) are at all-time highs in the number of House seats they possess. It is a total that includes 12 of the 13 Western states (all but Montana) and four states in the South. On the other hand, every state in the Northeast and Midwest are past their peak number of House seats. Seven states reached their all-time high with the latest reapportionment - , Georgia and Texas in the South, plus Arizona, California, Colorado and Nevada in the West. Nine other states maintained, or in the case of North Carolina, regained, record highs they had reached in an earlier decade. The following chart is based on data in Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections.

NORTHEAST Current High Decade Low Decade Connecticut 5 7 1790-1810 4 1840-1890 Delaware 1 2 1810 1 1789-1800, 1820-2000 Maine 2 8 1830 2 1960-2000 Maryland 8 9 1800-1820 5 1860 Massachusetts 10 17 1800 8 1789 New Hampshire 2 6 1810-20 2 1880-2000 New Jersey 13 15 1960-70 4 1789 New York 29 45 1930-40 6 1789 Pennsylvania 19 36 1910 8 1789 Rhode Island 2 3 1910 1 1789 Vermont 1 6 1810 1 1930-2000 West Virginia 3 6 1910-50 3 1870, 1990-2000

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 7 MIDWEST Current High Decade Low Decade Illinois 19 27 1910-30 1 1810-20 Indiana 9 13 1870-1910 1 1810 Iowa 5 11 1880-1910 2 1840-50 Kansas 4 8 1890-1910 1 1860 Michigan 15 19 1960-70 1 1830 Minnesota 8 10 1910 2 1850-60 Missouri 9 16 1900-1910 1 1820 Nebraska 3 6 1890-1910 1 1860-70 North Dakota 1 3 1910 1 1880-90, 1970-2000 18 24 1930, 1960 1 1800 South Dakota 1 3 1910 1 1980-2000 Wisconsin 8 11 1900-1910 2 1840 SOUTH Current High Decade Low Decade Alabama 7 10 1910 1 1810 Arkansas 4 7 1900-40 1 1830-40 Florida 25 25 2000 1 1840-60 Georgia 13 13 2000 2 1790 Kentucky 6 13 1830 2 1790 Louisiana 7 8 1910-80 1 1810 Mississippi 4 8 1900-1910 1 1810-20 North Carolina 13 13 1810-30, 2000 5 1789 Oklahoma 5 9 1930 5 1900, 2000 South Carolina 6 9 1810-30 4 1860 Tennessee 9 13 1830 1 1790 Texas 32 32 2000 2 1840-50 Virginia 11 23 1810 9 1870, 1930-40 WEST Current High Decade Low Decade Alaska 1 1 - 1 - Arizona 8 8 2000 1 1910-30 California 53 53 2000 2 1840-50 Colorado 7 7 2000 1 1870-80 Hawaii 2 2 1960-2000 1 1950 Idaho 2 2 1910-2000 1 1880-1900 Montana 1 2 1910-80 1 1880-1900, 1990-2000 Nevada 3 3 2000 1 1860-1970 New Mexico 3 3 1980-2000 1 1910-30 Oregon 5 5 1980-2000 1 1850-80 Utah 3 3 1980-2000 1 1890-1900 Washington 9 9 1990-2000 1 1880 Wyoming 1 1 - 1 -

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 8 (Continued from Page 6)

Texas Republicans responded that they had been the victims of heavy-handed Democratic line- drawing for decades, and that the current map left them underrepresented.

There is considerable correlation in presidential and House voting in much of the country. In the 30 states that Bush carried in the 2000 presidential election, for instance, Republicans control 63% of the House seats (138 of 218). In the 20 states that won, Democrats control 58% of the seats (125 of 217). In Texas, which Bush carried with Texas’ Democratic ‘Misfits’ nearly 60% of the Even with the current court-drawn congressional districts in Texas, a half dozen House presidential vote Democrats hold districts that voted strongly for George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential last time, Repub- election and presumably will do so again in 2004. All six of these Democratic “misfits” are licans hold 47% veteran members of the House, yet only one of the number won reelection in 2002 with at least 60% of the vote. Any of their seats could fall to the Republicans when they come open, of the seats (15 of if not before. 32). The 2002 House vote below is based on results from the office of the Texas secretary of state, with each member’s winning percentage based on their share of the total vote. The 2000 Texas Republicans presidential vote was computed for the current districts by the National Committee for an were blunted in Effective Congress, with percentages based on the major-party vote only. The ages of each their first attempt member are as of July 1, 2003. to redraw the cur- rent map. When Member’s ‘02 ‘00 Presidential the proposed revi- Member District Term (and Age) % Winner (and %) sions came up in Texas 17 13 (64) 51% Bush - 72% May, Democratic Texas 11 7 (51) 52% Bush - 68% legislators were Texas 1 4 (50) 56% Bush - 64% able to prevent Texas 4 12 (80) 58% Bush - 70% action by fleeing to Oklahoma, outside Texas 9 4 (58) 59% Bush - 55% the venue of Texas Texas 2 4 (57) 61% Bush - 63% law enforcement officials. They returned only after the deadline for legislative action had passed.

But the issue may not be dead. Gov. Perry has called for a special session of the legislature this summer to consider congressional redistricting.

Yet even if Democrats succeed in blocking it again, Texas Republicans could still pick up several seats in the years ahead with the lines remaining as they are.

Bush carried 21 of Texas’ current congressional districts in 2000, six of them presently represented by Democrats. Two of the Democrats, Charles W. Stenholm and Chet Edwards, were narrowly reelected in 2002 - with 51% and 52% of the vote, respectively. Three other Democrats – Max Sand- lin, Ralph Hall and Nick Lampson – won reelection last year with less than 60%.

If any of these members retires, Republicans would probably have the inside track to replace them,

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 9 while those who decide to seek reelection in 2004 could find themselves high on GOP target lists.

Davis’ Problem or a Democratic Problem?”

ny action in Texas, though, would not be felt until next year. The effort to recall Gov. Davis, Athough, is likely to be decided this year. Proponents need to collect nearly 900,000 signa- tures from California’s 15 million registered voters by Sept. 2 in order to force a quick vote.

It would be a two-part election. The first part would be a yes or no vote on whether to oust the governor. The second part would require voters to choose among candidates to fill the remainder of Davis’ term through 2006. There would be no primaries beforehand, and no requirement that the winning candidate receive a majority of the vote. If Davis lost the recall vote, his successor could be elected with as low as 10% or 15% in a crowded field.

California Democrats have been virtually unanimous in opposing the recall. Republicans have been publicly divided. The White House has been quiet. But Rep. Darrell Issa has reportedly spent more than $1 million on the recall effort, and is one of several Republicans expected to run if there is a special vote.

By late June, the office of the California secretary of state reported that more than 40% of the need- ed signatures had been obtained, though they were yet to be verified by county election officials. Many of the signatures had come from the more Republican areas of Southern California.

A key question is whether a gubernatorial recall – which has never happened before in California - is solely a reflection on Davis, or whether it is a precursor of a less Democratic, more competitive, political era in the nation’s largest state.

There is no question that Davis’ political fortunes have been in decline. He won the governor- ship in 1998 by more than 1.6 million votes, the second-largest margin of victory in any contested gubernatorial election in California history. Four years later, after a state energy crisis replete with power failures and the onset of the state budget crisis, Davis won reelection by less than 400,000 votes.

Of California’s 58 counties, Davis carried just 18 in 2002. Basically, he won only the Democratic strongholds of County and the greater San Francisco Bay area. Sixteen other counties that he had carried in 1998 slipped to the Republicans, including populous ones such as Sacramen- to, San Bernardino and Ventura, which had carried in his two presidential bids.

Davis’ showing in 2002 was down across the board in Democratic as well as Republican terrain. He dropped 10 percentage points from 1998 in Orange County, the long-time symbol of conservative Sun Belt Republicanism. And he fell 14 points off his previous showing in San Francisco, a hotbed of Democratic liberalism.

If there was a silver lining in Davis’ precipitous decline, it was that his 11-point falloff (from 58% in 1998 to 47% in 2002) was not matched by a similar upswing in the Republican vote. The GOP can- didate last year, Bill Simon, ran only 4 points better than Republican nominee Dan Lungren had in 1998. The rest of the vote shifted to third parties, the choice of 10% of California voters last fall.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 10 Counties carried by Davis in both 1998 and 2002

Counties carried by Davis in 1998, but not 2002

Counties carried by GOP against Davis in 1998 and 2002

Gray Davis’ Decline California Gubernatorial Vote Change, 1998 2002 1998-2002 Gray Davis 4,860,702 3,533,490 -1,327,212 Republican 3,218,030 3,169,801 - 48,229 Others 306,464 773,020 + 466,556 Total Vote 8,385,196 7,476,311 - 908,885 Davis’ Plurality 1,642,672 363,689 -1,278,983

Davis’ Declining Vote Share in California’s Most Populous Counties

Democratic Gov. Gray Davis’ share of the vote declined across the board from 1998 to 2002 - in Democratic Los Angeles County and the liberal bastions of the San Francisco Bay area, as well as the more Republican-oriented suburban counties of Southern California. Percentages for Davis are based on the total vote in each election and reflect official returns. Percentages for counties carried by Davis in 1998 or 2002 are listed in bold.

2002 Voter Turnout (and % of 1998 2002 Change, 1998-2002 statewide vote) STATEWIDE 58% 47% - 11% 7,476,311 (100.0%) Los Angeles 66% 56% - 10% 1,706,059 (22.8%) Orange 45% 35% - 10% 641,008 (8.6%) San Diego 50% 41% - 9% 661,298 (8.8%) San Bernardino 53% 41% - 12% 283,191 (3.8%) Santa Clara 64% 55% - 9% 360,396 (4.8%) Riverside 51% 40% - 11% 302,683 (4.0%) Alameda 74% 63% - 11% 343,901 (4.6%) Sacramento 57% 41% - 16% 316,397 (4.2%) Contra Costa 63% 53% - 10% 264,870 (3.5%) Fresno 48% 38% - 10% 155,471 (2.1%) San Francisco 80% 66% - 14% 216,156 (2.9%) Ventura 53% 43% - 10% 193,387 (2.6%)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 11 Democratic Presidential Calendar Taking Shape

he Democratic delegate-selection calendar for 2004 is approaching completion, and the Tcritical early stage looks quite different from the last time. In 2000, Al Gore and Bill Bradley competed in Iowa and New Hampshire, then had to wait five weeks before balloting resumed in more than a dozen states on the first Tuesday in March. There will be no such intermission next year. Democratic rules have been changed to move up the start- ing date for the post-New Hampshire stage of the campaign by one month, from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

In 2004, Democrats will have a steady staccato of action from Iowa on. By the end of February, one-third of the states will have voted. By the night of March 2, more than half the country will have expressed their preference. And by the ides of March, Democrats in two-thirds of the states will have held their primary or launched their caucus process. If recent history is a guide, the Democratic nominee will have been decided by then.

The rush to judgment could be quicker next year than ever before. But at least the critical early vote tests in January and February will involve states in every region of the country. By the end of February, three states in the Northeast, four states each in the Midwest and South, and six states in the West will have held their primary or first-round caucus.

Several states have dropped their primaries for 2004 – Michigan and Colorado, the most conspicu- ous thus far. But it is still the preferred method of delegate selection in most of the country. Dem- ocrats in 36 states are scheduled to select delegates through primaries next year, while 15 states plus the District of Columbia will use the caucus process. Following recent custom, Texas Demo- crats will employ both methods.

Jan. and Feb. Events

March 2nd Events

Later Events, or Unscheduled

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 12 Tentative 2004 Democratic Delegate-Selection Calendar and Delegate Totals

This tentative 2004 Democratic delegate-selection calendar and state-by-state delegate count are based based on information provided by the Democratic National Committee in late June and are subject to small changes. The delegate count reflects the total number allocated to each state and territory, a combination of publicly elected “pledged” delegates and “unpledged” . An asterisk (*) indicates that a primary will be conducted by the party and not by the state.

Democrats in several states and territories have yet to set dates for their 2004 delegate-selection events. They are listed at the bottom of the chart as “Unscheduled.” The District of Columbia is slated to hold a non-binding presidential primary Jan. 13, but District Democrats have indicated they will elect delegates later through a caucus process.

Date State and System Delegates Date State and System Delegates Jan. 19 Iowa Caucuses 55 March 9 Florida Primary 201 Jan. 27 New Hampshire Primary 27 Louisiana Primary 71 Feb. 3 Arizona Primary 63 Mississippi Primary 42 Delaware Primary 23 Texas Primary and Caucuses 232 Missouri Primary 87 March 13 Kansas Caucuses 40 New Mexico Caucuses 37 March 16 Illinois Primary 186 Oklahoma Primary 47 March 20 Wyoming Caucuses 19 South Carolina Primary * 55 April 13 Colorado Caucuses 64 Feb. 6-9 Democrats Abroad Caucuses 9 April 27 Pennsylvania Primary 178 Feb. 7 Michigan Caucuses 153 May 4 Indiana Primary 81 Washington Caucuses 95 North Carolina Primary 108 Feb. 8 Maine Caucuses 35 May 11 Nebraska Primary 31 Feb. 10 Tennessee Primary 85 West Virginia Primary 39 Virginia Primary 96 May 18 Arkansas Primary 47 Feb. 14 Nevada Caucuses 32 Kentucky Primary 57 Feb. 17 Wisconsin Primary 87 Oregon Primary 58 Feb. 24 Idaho Caucuses 23 June 1 Alabama Primary 62 Feb. 27 Utah Primary * 29 Montana Primary 21 March 2 California Primary 441 New Jersey Primary 127 Connecticut Primary 61 South Dakota Primary 21 Georgia Primary 104 Hawaii Caucuses 29 Unscheduled Alaska Caucuses 18 Maryland Primary 98 American Samoa Caucuses 6 Massachusetts Primary 120 D.C. Caucuses 39 Minnesota Caucuses 86 Guam Caucuses 4 New York Primary 286 North Dakota Caucuses 22 Ohio Primary 159 Puerto Rico Caucuses 59 Rhode Island Primary 32 Virgin Island Caucuses 6 Vermont Primary 22 Unassigned 3 TOTAL DELEGATE VOTES 4,318 Needed to Nominate 2,160

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 13 What’s up in 2004 2000 Presidential Winner House Seats State Senators Governors (and margin of victory) RDI Alabama Bush by 15% 5 2 Richard Shelby (R) Alaska Bush by 31% 1 Lisa Murkowski (R) Arizona Bush by 6% 6 2 John McCain (R) Arkansas Bush by 6% 1 3 Blanche Lincoln (D) California Gore by 12% 20 33 Barbara Boxer (D) Colorado Bush by 8% 5 2 Ben Campbell (R) Connecticut Gore by 18% 3 2 Christopher Dodd (D) Delaware Gore by 13% 1 Ruth Ann Minner (D) Florida Bush by 0.01% 18 7 Bob Graham (D) Georgia Bush by 12% 8 5 Zell Miller (D) Hawaii Gore by 18% 2 Daniel Inouye (D) Idaho Bush by 40% 2 Michael Crapo (R) Illinois Gore by 12% 10 9 Peter Fitzgerald (R) Indiana Bush by 16% 6 3 Evan Bayh (D) Frank O’Bannon (D) Iowa Gore by 0.3% 4 1 Charles Grassley (R) Kansas Bush by 21% 3 1 Sam Brownback (R) Kentucky Bush by 15% 5 1 (R) Paul Patton (D)* Louisiana Bush by 8% 4 3 John Breaux (D) Mike Foster (R)* Maine Gore by 5% 2 Maryland Gore by 16% 2 6 Barbara Mikulski (D) Massachusetts Gore by 27% 10 Michigan Gore by 5% 9 6 Minnesota Gore by 2% 4 4

Mississippi Bush by 17% 2 2 Ronnie Musgrove (D)* Missouri Bush by 3% 5 4 Christopher Bond (R) Bob Holden (D) Montana Bush by 25% 1 Judy Martz (R) Nebraska Bush by 29% 3 Nevada Bush by 4% 2 1 (D) New Hampshire Bush by 1% 2 Judd Gregg (R) Craig Benson (R) New Jersey Gore by 16% 6 7 New Mexico Gore by 0.1% 2 1 New York Gore by 25% 10 19 Charles Schumer (D) North Carolina Bush by 13% 7 6 (D) Mike Easley (D) North Dakota Bush by 28% 1 Byron Dorgan (D) John Hoeven (R) Ohio Bush by 4% 12 6 George Voinovich (R) Oklahoma Bush by 22% 4 1 Don Nickles (R) Oregon Gore by 0.5% 1 4 Ron Wyden (D) Pennsylvania Gore by 4% 12 7 Arlen Specter (R) Rhode Island Gore by 29% 2 South Carolina Bush by 16% 4 2 Ernest Hollings (D)

South Dakota Bush by 23% 1 (D) Tennessee Bush by 4% 4 5 Texas Bush by 21% 15 17 Utah Bush by 41% 2 1 Robert Bennett (R) Michael Leavitt (R)

Vermont Gore by 10% 1 Patrick Leahy (D) Jim Douglas (R) Virginia Bush by 8% 8 3

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 14 2000 Presidential Winner House Seats State Senators Governors (and margin of victory) RDI

Washington Gore by 6% 3 6 Patty Murray (D) Gary Locke (D) West Virginia Bush by 6% 1 2 Bob Wise (D) Wisconsin Gore by 0.2% 4 4 Russell Feingold (D)

Wyoming Bush by 40% 1 Dist. of Col Gore by 76% NATIONAL Gore by 0.5% 229 205 1 34 Up (19 D, 15 R) 14 Up (8D, 6R) Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that the next gubernatorial election is in 2003. Three states - Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi - elect governors this fall. Although Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, Republican George W. Bush won the all-important electoral vote, 271-to- 266, with one Democratic elector casting a blank ballot.

2003 Elections: Gubernatorial, House Candidates at the Ballot Box

The following results from this year’s gubernatorial primaries and special House elections are based on nearly complete but unofficial returns, except for Kentucky where the results are official. All candidates are listed that drew at least 10% of the vote. Winners are indicated in bold type. Percentages do not always add to 100% due to rounding.

GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARIES Kentucky (May 20) OPEN SEAT - Incumbent: Paul Patton (D) DEMOCRATS Candidates Occupation % Ben Chandler Ky. Attorney General 50% Jody Richards State House speaker 47% Other - 3% (Total Vote - 285,149) REPUBLICANS Candidates Occupation % Ernie Fletcher U.S. Representative 57% Rebecca Jackson Ex-Jefferson Co. Judge-Executive 28% Steve Nunn State Representative 13% Other - 1% (Total Vote - 158,528) SPECIAL HOUSE ELECTIONS Hawaii 2nd (Jan. 4) OPEN SEAT - Previously held by Patsy Mink (D) All-Party Election Candidates Occupation % Ed Case (D) Incumbent 44% Matt Matsunaga (D) Ex-State Senator 30% Others - 26% (Total Vote - 75,574) Texas 19th (May 3, Runoff June 3) OPEN SEAT - Previously held by Larry Combest (R) All-Party Primary (and Runoff) Candidates Occupation % Randy Neugebauer (R) Land developer 22% (51%) Mike Conaway (R) Accountant 21% (49%) Carl Isett (R) State Representative 19% David Langston (R) Ex-Lubbock Mayor 14% Others - 24% (Total Vote - 58,118; Runoff - 56,505)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 15 Subscribe to The Rhodes Cook Letter! Please fill in the information below. Indicate whether you would prefer the newsletter be sent to you electronically, or in printed form through the mail. (Please fill in your e-mail address in any case.) A subscription is $99 for six issues. Indicate whether you are enclosing a check now or would prefer to be billed later by mail. The newsletter is published on a bimonthly basis, with the next issue in August 2003. Please mail this form and a check (if you are paying now) to “ The Rhodes Cook Letter,” P.O. Box 574, Annandale, VA. 22003. Thank you. Name: E-Mail Address: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Organization (if applicable): Phone number (optional): Type of Payment: Check Enclosed payable to “ The Rhodes Cook Letter” Bill My Credit Card Credit Card Number: ______Expiration: ______Bill Me By Mail

I would like to receive the newsletter: Electronically By Mail

The Rhodes Cook Letter • June 2003 16