Übersicht
Incumbency1 was the most powerful single factor determining a state legislative candidate’s success in the 2013 and 2014 elections, followed closely by the power of money. Incumbency combined with fundraising prowess produced a nearly unbeatable 94 percent chance of victory.
Consistent with the national average during the past six cycles, incumbents enjoyed a 91 percent chance of success. The 84 percent success rate of those who raised the most money remained consistent with the previous seven-cycle average of 83 percent.
As Table 1 shows, challengers to incumbents and those who ran in open races and raised less money than their opponents experienced an extremely low success rate.
Figure 1: Success Rate in Contested General Elections for State Legislatures, 2001–2014
![SuccessForContested2001 14](assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImageWzYwMCw2MDBd/SuccessForContested2001-14.png)
The Institute’s analysis of legislative races in 47 states2 during the 2013 and 2014 primary and general elections reveals:
- Races for four of five seats, or 83 percent, featured an incumbent.
- Incumbents raised more than twice the average raised by other candidates.
- Incumbents raised nearly two and one-half times more than candidates vying for open seats.3
An examination of legislative candidates in contested general election races in 2013 and 2014 reveals:
- Nine in ten incumbents were returned to office.
- Open-seat candidates with the monetary advantage won 81 percent of the time.
- Candidates with neither advantage were successful just 10 percent of the time.
- Four in ten successful incumbents were unchallenged.
- Just 6 percent of candidates with both incumbency and the monetary upper hand lost.
Methodology
To evaluate the incumbency and fundraising advantage of legislative candidates during the 2013 and 2014 elections, the National Institute on Money in State Politics calculated the success rate of incumbents seeking reelection, candidates with a fundraising advantage, and candidates with the two factors combined.
The rate of success for incumbents seeking reelection was determined by dividing the number of winning incumbents by the total number of incumbents running. For example, if 88 of 100 incumbents seeking election won, incumbents had an 88 percent success rate. Unless otherwise indicated, the number of incumbents seeking reelection includes incumbents who lost in the primary elections.
To determine how many winners were incumbents, the number of winning incumbents was divided by the total number of all winners. For example, 88 incumbent winners divided by 112 total winners means 79 percent of all winners were incumbents.
The fundraising advantage belongs to the candidate who raised the most funds in the race for that specific seat. In districts where two or more candidates were elected, the fundraising advantage was given to as many of the top fundraisers as there were seats up for election. In the event of a fundraising tie, the advantage was given to both candidates. A fundraising advantage was assigned only to candidates who were in contested races in the general election. It was not assigned to uncontested candidates nor was it assigned to candidates who faced opposition only in the primary election, or who lost in the primary.
Seven states have multiple-seat districts: Arizona, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. An eighth state, Maryland, has a dual system in which some districts are multi-seat districts and others have specific positions. All races in these states were considered contested when there were more candidates in the general election than the number of seats up for election.4
In Utah, candidates are sometimes selected in party conventions rather than in a primary election. Such conventions are included in any discussion about primaries.
In Hawaii, a candidate who wins the primary election and is unopposed at the general election is declared the winner and does not run in the general election.
Maryland and New Jersey candidates are allowed to form slate or joint committees. Because New Jersey candidates can establish a single candidate committee and/or be part of a joint committee, New Jersey is excluded from this analysis since many candidates raise money through joint candidate committees. Because these committees raise funds for multiple candidates it is impossible to determine the amount raised by each individual candidate.
Maryland candidates must establish a separate individual account before they can join a slate committee. Therefore, this analysis includes the campaign contributions from the individual accounts and excludes money raised by the slate committee.
Write-in candidates, included in previous reports, were excluded from this analysis because complete information about write-in candidates is inconsistent, difficult to attain, and is of little significance to this analysis.
For more information on legislative races, see the Institute’s report, 2013 and 2014: Monetary Competitiveness in State Legislative Races.
The Incumbency Advantage
Incumbent legislators were reelected in 2013 and 2014 at the high rate of 91 percent—on par with their average success rate observed since 2001. A major benefit of incumbency is name recognition, which is a difficult hurdle for challengers to overcome because incumbents remain in the public eye through legislative work, constituency contacts, and media attention.
Figure 2: Success Rate of Incumbents in Primary and General Elections for State Legislatures, 2013 & 2014
![SuccessIncumbInPrimaryGeneral13 14](assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImageWzYwMCw1ODFd/SuccessIncumbInPrimaryGeneral13-14.png)
The incumbency advantage seemed to have a chilling effect on competitors: 4 in 10 incumbents running in the general election faced no challenger. In contested general elections, the rate of incumbency success was typically greater than 80 percent. In fact, incumbents enjoyed a 90 percent or greater success rate in 37 states.
Figure 3: Success Rate of Incumbents in States with Contested General Elections for State Legislatures, 2013 & 2014
![SuccessIncumbContestedGeneral13 14](assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImageWzYwMCw2MTBd/SuccessIncumbContestedGeneral13-14.png)
The Fundraising Advantage
In 37 states, the success rate of monetary leaders exceeded 80 percent. Those who raised the most money in 21 of those states saw successes greater than 90 percent. Indiana, Oregon, and Tennessee topped the list at 96 percent successful, followed closely by five states at 95 percent.
The 10 states where monetary leaders fell below 80 percent success includes a trio of states where legislators can choose public funding: Maine and Connecticut offer full public funding; Minnesota offers partial public funding.
Figure 4: Success Rate of Monetary Leaders in Contested General Elections for State Legislatures, 2013 & 2014
The Dual Advantage
Incumbency and money are each strong factors that contribute to success. Combining the two creates an extremely potent advantage. In 2013 and 2014, 94 percent of incumbent monetary leaders were winners.
Figure 5: Success Rate of Incumbents with Monetary Advantage in Contested General Elections for State Legislatures, 2013 & 2014
A Closer Look
The Institute took a closer look at the role of money and incumbency in three scenarios: key legislative races in which money and incumbency played a major role in the success of the candidates; races that bucked the trend; and races where money and incumbency had little or no impact.
In six states—Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Utah—every general election legislative incumbent who raised more money than did their challenger, won.
On the other hand, 41 states saw an exception to the rule in 147 seats, where having both advantages was not enough.
In three states—Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington—three long-term legislators were removed despite the fact that they outraised their challengers.
Highlights of Success of Legislative Candidates with Both Advantages
In six states, every dual-advantage candidate in a contested general election was successful.
- In Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah, dual-advantage candidates represented one in four of all candidates.
- In Hawaii and Utah, dual-advantage candidates took more than 60 percent of the seats up for election.
- The average raised by winners clearly outpaced the average raised by challengers.
* In Hawaii, races may be decided at the primary election, when winning candidates do not advance to general election and are automatically declared the winner.
When Money and Incumbency Were Not Enough
Despite seemingly overwhelming odds, there were notable upsets in which incumbency and/or money were not enough to win the race.
In contested general elections, 148 legislative candidates who had both money and incumbency in their favor were defeated. These candidates—127 assembly/house members and 21 senators—represent 6 percent of those with dual advantages.
- Democrats took the biggest hit: 136 (92 percent) of the dual-advantaged losers were Democrats.
- On average, losers raised $78,208 more than the winners.
Of note, three long-term dual-advantage legislators were unseated:
- Republican Bruce Starr, a two-term state representative who had also served three terms in Oregon’s Senate District 15, lost to Democrat Charles D. Riley. Sen. Starr raised more than $1 million; Riley raised a comparable war chest of $934,572.
- In the race for House District 74 in Tennessee, nine-term Rep. John C. Tidwell (Democrat) was ousted by Republican challenger Jay D. Reedy despite the fact that incumbent Tidwell raised more ($76,236 to Reedy’s $56,629). Reedy won with 52 percent of the vote.5
- In Washington, Democratic Rep. Kathy Haigh served eight terms before losing to Republican challenger Dan Griffey in a close race for House District 35 Position 1, despite raising more than Griffey ($248,991 to Griffey’s $169,714).6
In addition, three incumbents lost to their challengers who outraised them:
- In Alaska’s House District 5, Republican Rep. Pete Higgins lost his seat to Democrat Adam Wool. Wool raised $46,705 to Higgins’ $40,887.
- In Hawaii’s House District 43, former state house majority leader, Rep. Karen Leinani Awana,7 a Democrat, served in four sessions before she lost to newcomer Republican Andria P. Tupola. Tupola raised $58,819, nearly double the $30,279 raised by Awana.
- In Utah House District 31, Democratic Rep. Larry Wiley raised $43,821 and lost to Republican Sophia DiCaro, who raised $58,176.8
Appendix A: Top Fundraising Legislative Incumbents in Contested General Election Races, 2013 & 2014
State | Incumbents in Contested General | Incumbent Monetary Leaders in Contested General | Percent of Incumbents Who Were Monetary Leaders |
---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 45 | 43 | 96% |
Alaska | 32 | 30 | 94% |
Arizona* | 48 | 42 | 88% |
Arkansas | 29 | 25 | 86% |
California | 63 | 62 | 98% |
Colorado | 47 | 44 | 94% |
Connecticut* | 127 | 93 | 73% |
Delaware | 29 | 28 | 97% |
Florida | 59 | 53 | 90% |
Georgien | 39 | 36 | 92% |
Hawaii** | 43 | 40 | 93% |
Idaho | 50 | 44 | 88% |
Illinois | 44 | 42 | 95% |
Indiana | 62 | 58 | 94% |
Iowa | 59 | 47 | 80% |
Kansas | 61 | 57 | 93% |
Kentucky | 53 | 45 | 85% |
Maine* | 116 | 79 | 68% |
Maryland | 90 | 86 | 96% |
Massachusetts | 69 | 56 | 81% |
Michigan | 97 | 94 | 97% |
Minnesota** | 110 | 102 | 93% |
Missouri | 69 | 65 | 94% |
Montana | 62 | 46 | 74% |
Nebraska | 5 | 5 | 100% |
Nevada | 34 | 33 | 97% |
New Hampshire | 264 | 110 | 42% |
New Mexico | 28 | 27 | 96% |
New York | 119 | 108 | 91% |
North Carolina | 80 | 75 | 94% |
North Dakota | 42 | 34 | 81% |
Ohio | 70 | 67 | 96% |
Oklahoma | 29 | 26 | 90% |
Oregon | 40 | 38 | 95% |
Pennsylvania | 88 | 83 | 94% |
Rhode Island | 41 | 34 | 83% |
South Carolina | 28 | 26 | 93% |
South Dakota | 43 | 41 | 95% |
Tennessee | 39 | 39 | 100% |
Texas | 77 | 76 | 99% |
Utah | 61 | 57 | 93% |
Vermont | 86 | 48 | 56% |
Virginia | 43 | 39 | 91% |
Washington | 90 | 85 | 94% |
West Virginia | 87 | 60 | 69% |
Wisconsin | 47 | 43 | 91% |
Wyoming | 20 | 14 | 70% |
Total | 2,964 | 2,485 | 84% |
No elections were held in Louisiana or Mississippi in 2013 and 2014. New Jersey is excluded from this analysis because many candidates raise money via joint candidate committees thus hindering the ability to analyze individual candidate fundraising.
*This state provides full public financing.
**This state provides partial public financing.
Appendix B: Money and Incumbency Advantage in Contested Legislative Races in General Elections, 2013 & 2014
State | Success Rate of Monetary Leaders | Success Rate of Incumbents | Success Rate of Incumbent Monetary Leaders |
---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 95% | 91% | 95% |
Alaska | 95% | 97% | 100% |
Arizona* | 80% | 98% | 98% |
Arkansas | 69% | 66% | 72% |
California | 89% | 94% | 94% |
Colorado | 91% | 87% | 91% |
Connecticut* | 71% | 92% | 96% |
Delaware | 88% | 93% | 93% |
Florida | 91% | 90% | 94% |
Georgien | 94% | 100% | 100% |
Hawaii** | 94% | 98% | 100% |
Idaho | 90% | 96% | 98% |
Illinois | 87% | 98% | 98% |
Indiana | 96% | 92% | 98% |
Iowa | 83% | 92% | 96% |
Kansas | 91% | 93% | 95% |
Kentucky | 83% | 92% | 96% |
Maine* | 68% | 82% | 89% |
Maryland | 87% | 92% | 93% |
Massachusetts | 82% | 96% | 98% |
Michigan | 95% | 98% | 98% |
Minnesota** | 87% | 90% | 91% |
Missouri | 86% | 93% | 94% |
Montana | 81% | 89% | 98% |
Nebraska | 85% | 100% | 100% |
Nevada | 84% | 79% | 82% |
New Hampshire | 65% | 84% | 84% |
New Mexico | 79% | 82% | 81% |
New York | 92% | 96% | 98% |
North Carolina | 91% | 94% | 96% |
North Dakota | 79% | 93% | 97% |
Ohio | 95% | 96% | 99% |
Oklahoma | 91% | 97% | 96% |
Oregon | 96% | 95% | 97% |
Pennsylvania | 93% | 94% | 96% |
Rhode Island | 73% | 83% | 82% |
South Carolina | 86% | 100% | 100% |
South Dakota | 88% | 95% | 95% |
Tennessee | 96% | 95% | 95% |
Texas | 95% | 97% | 97% |
Utah | 91% | 98% | 100% |
Vermont | 68% | 88% | 92% |
Virginia | 87% | 95% | 95% |
Washington | 90% | 96% | 96% |
West Virginia | 63% | 72% | 75% |
Wisconsin | 93% | 94% | 98% |
Wyoming | 65% | 90% | 93% |
Average | 84% | 91% | 94% |
No elections were held in Louisiana or Mississippi in 2013 and 2014. New Jersey is excluded from this analysis because many candidates raise money via joint candidate committees thus hindering the ability to analyze individual candidate fundraising.
*This state provides full public financing.
**This state provides partial public financing.
Appendix C: Success Rate of All Incumbent Legislative Candidates Through Primary and General Elections, 2013 & 2014
State | Winners | Incumbent Winners | Percent of Seats Won by Incumbents | All Incumbents | Percent of Incumbents Who Won * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 140 | 106 | 76% | 118 | 90% |
Alaska | 54 | 43 | 80% | 46 | 93% |
Arizona⤉ | 90 | 59 | 66% | 61 | 97% |
Arkansas⤉ | 118 | 73 | 62% | 88 | 83% |
California⤉ | 100 | 63 | 63% | 67 | 94% |
Colorado⤉ | 82 | 53 | 65% | 59 | 90% |
Connecticut | 187 | 151 | 81% | 163 | 93% |
Delaware | 51 | 45 | 88% | 49 | 92% |
Florida⤉ | 139 | 117 | 84% | 124 | 94% |
Georgien | 236 | 212 | 90% | 219 | 97% |
Hawaii | 64 | 54 | 84% | 58 | 93% |
Idaho | 105 | 83 | 79% | 91 | 91% |
Illinois | 137 | 120 | 88% | 124 | 97% |
Indiana | 125 | 108 | 86% | 116 | 93% |
Iowa | 125 | 104 | 83% | 109 | 95% |
Kansas | 125 | 98 | 78% | 106 | 92% |
Kentucky | 119 | 102 | 86% | 108 | 94% |
Maine⤉ | 186 | 104 | 56% | 126 | 83% |
Maryland | 188 | 114 | 61% | 133 | 86% |
Massachusetts | 199 | 173 | 87% | 177 | 98% |
Michigan⤉ | 148 | 95 | 64% | 98 | 97% |
Minnesota | 134 | 108 | 81% | 119 | 91% |
Missouri⤉ | 180 | 141 | 78% | 146 | 97% |
Montana⤉ | 125 | 70 | 56% | 79 | 89% |
Nebraska⤉ | 24 | 7 | 29% | 7 | 100% |
Nevada⤉ | 53 | 36 | 68% | 43 | 84% |
New Hampshire | 424 | 255 | 60% | 307 | 83% |
New Mexico | 70 | 51 | 73% | 58 | 88% |
New York | 213 | 186 | 87% | 192 | 97% |
North Carolina | 170 | 146 | 86% | 154 | 95% |
North Dakota | 72 | 56 | 78% | 59 | 95% |
Ohio⤉ | 116 | 83 | 72% | 89 | 93% |
Oklahoma⤉ | 125 | 94 | 75% | 95 | 99% |
Oregon | 75 | 55 | 73% | 58 | 95% |
Pennsylvania | 228 | 195 | 86% | 205 | 95% |
Rhode Island | 113 | 95 | 84% | 105 | 90% |
South Carolina | 124 | 111 | 90% | 113 | 98% |
South Dakota⤉ | 105 | 70 | 67% | 72 | 97% |
Tennessee | 116 | 94 | 81% | 104 | 90% |
Texas | 165 | 136 | 82% | 149 | 91% |
Utah | 89 | 73 | 82% | 78 | 94% |
Vermont | 180 | 136 | 76% | 147 | 93% |
Virginia | 100 | 85 | 85% | 89 | 96% |
Washington | 122 | 104 | 85% | 109 | 95% |
West Virginia | 117 | 74 | 63% | 105 | 70% |
Wisconsin | 116 | 84 | 72% | 87 | 97% |
Wyoming | 75 | 59 | 79% | 65 | 91% |
Total | 6,149 | 4,681 | 76% | 5,074 | 92% |
No elections were held in Louisiana or Mississippi in 2013 and 2014. New Jersey is excluded from this analysis because many candidates raise money via joint candidate committees thus hindering the ability to analyze individual candidate fundraising.
* Incumbents who did not advance beyond the primary and convention are factored into these percentages.
⤉ This state imposes term limits.
Appendix D: Contested Legislative Seats in General Elections, 2013 & 2014
State | Number of Contested Seats | Number of Seats Up for Election | Percent of Seats Contested |
---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 60 | 140 | 43% |
Alaska | 42 | 54 | 78% |
Arizona*⤉ | 76 | 90 | 84% |
Arkansas⤉ | 42 | 118 | 36% |
California⤉ | 96 | 100 | 96% |
Colorado⤉ | 67 | 82 | 82% |
Connecticut* | 152 | 187 | 81% |
Delaware | 33 | 51 | 65% |
Florida⤉ | 68 | 139 | 49% |
Georgien | 48 | 236 | 20% |
Hawaii** | 51 | 64 | 80% |
Idaho | 63 | 105 | 60% |
Illinois | 55 | 137 | 40% |
Indiana | 71 | 125 | 57% |
Iowa | 71 | 125 | 57% |
Kansas | 76 | 125 | 61% |
Kentucky | 63 | 119 | 53% |
Maine*⤉ | 172 | 186 | 92% |
Maryland | 150 | 188 | 80% |
Massachusetts | 88 | 199 | 44% |
Michigan⤉ | 148 | 148 | 100% |
Minnesota** | 125 | 134 | 93% |
Missouri⤉ | 95 | 180 | 53% |
Montana⤉ | 108 | 125 | 86% |
Nebraska⤉ | 20 | 24 | 83% |
Nevada⤉ | 43 | 53 | 81% |
New Hampshire | 376 | 424 | 89% |
New Mexico | 34 | 70 | 49% |
New York | 140 | 213 | 66% |
North Carolina | 90 | 170 | 53% |
North Dakota | 52 | 72 | 72% |
Ohio⤉ | 97 | 116 | 84% |
Oklahoma⤉ | 47 | 125 | 38% |
Oregon | 57 | 75 | 76% |
Pennsylvania | 111 | 228 | 49% |
Rhode Island | 48 | 113 | 42% |
South Carolina | 35 | 124 | 28% |
South Dakota⤉ | 64 | 105 | 61% |
Tennessee | 51 | 116 | 44% |
Texas | 96 | 165 | 58% |
Utah | 75 | 89 | 84% |
Vermont | 109 | 180 | 61% |
Virginia | 54 | 100 | 54% |
Washington | 104 | 122 | 85% |
West Virginia | 106 | 117 | 91% |
Wisconsin | 67 | 116 | 58% |
Wyoming | 27 | 75 | 36% |
Total | 3,923 | 6,149 | 64% |
No elections were held in Louisiana or Mississippi in 2013 and 2014. New Jersey is excluded from this analysis because many candidates raise money via joint candidate committees thus hindering the ability to analyze individual candidate fundraising.
* This state provides full public funding.
** This state provides partial public funding.
⤉ This state imposes term limits.
Appendix E: Effect of Fundraising Advantage on Non-Incumbent Candidates in Contested Legislative Races, 2013 & 2014
State | Candidates With Neither Advantage in Contested General Elections | Success Rate of Candidates With Neither Advantage | Non-Incumbents With Monetary Advantage in Contested General Elections | Success Rate of Non-Incumbents With Monetary Advantage |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 64 | 5% | 17 | 94% |
Alaska | 42 | 2% | 12 | 83% |
Arizona*⤉ | 57 | 16% | 34 | 59% |
Arkansas⤉ | 41 | 29% | 17 | 65% |
California⤉ | 95 | 11% | 34 | 79% |
Colorado⤉ | 90 | 6% | 23 | 91% |
Connecticut* | 139 | 12% | 59 | 32% |
Delaware | 37 | 8% | 5 | 60% |
Florida⤉ | 71 | 4% | 15 | 80% |
Georgien | 46 | 0% | 12 | 75% |
Hawaii** | 58 | 2% | 11 | 73% |
Idaho | 62 | 2% | 19 | 74% |
Illinois | 53 | 9% | 13 | 54% |
Indiana | 74 | 4% | 13 | 85% |
Iowa | 64 | 5% | 24 | 58% |
Kansas | 78 | 5% | 19 | 79% |
Kentucky | 55 | 9% | 18 | 50% |
Maine*⤉ | 155 | 19% | 93 | 51% |
Maryland | 123 | 14% | 64 | 78% |
Massachusetts | 85 | 6% | 32 | 53% |
Michigan⤉ | 165 | 2% | 54 | 91% |
Minnesota** | 124 | 8% | 23 | 70% |
Missouri⤉ | 102 | 10% | 30 | 70% |
Montana⤉ | 97 | 11% | 62 | 68% |
Nebraska⤉ | 20 | 15% | 15 | 80% |
Nevada⤉ | 52 | 13% | 10 | 90% |
New Hampshire | 318 | 27% | 137 | 50% |
New Mexico | 33 | 18% | 7 | 71% |
New York | 161 | 2% | 31 | 71% |
North Carolina | 87 | 6% | 15 | 67% |
North Dakota | 40 | 13% | 18 | 44% |
Ohio⤉ | 109 | 4% | 30 | 87% |
Oklahoma⤉ | 47 | 2% | 21 | 86% |
Oregon | 74 | 1% | 19 | 95% |
Pennsylvania | 111 | 5% | 28 | 82% |
Rhode Island | 44 | 16% | 14 | 50% |
South Carolina | 34 | 9% | 9 | 44% |
South Dakota⤉ | 53 | 11% | 23 | 74% |
Tennessee | 59 | 3% | 12 | 100% |
Texas | 116 | 3% | 20 | 85% |
Utah | 91 | 4% | 18 | 61% |
Vermont | 74 | 8% | 56 | 48% |
Virginia | 57 | 5% | 15 | 67% |
Washington | 99 | 6% | 19 | 63% |
West Virginia | 89 | 24% | 46 | 48% |
Wisconsin | 66 | 5% | 24 | 83% |
Wyoming | 23 | 22% | 12 | 33% |
Total | 3,834 | 10% | 1,302 | 65% |
No elections were held in Louisiana or Mississippi in 2013 and 2014. New Jersey is excluded from this analysis because many candidates raise money via joint candidate committees thus hindering the ability to analyze individual candidate fundraising.
* This state provides full public funding.
** This state provides partial public funding.
⤉ This state imposes term limits.
- 1. Incumbents are officeholders who either ran for reelection to their current seat or ran for an open seat in a different district, often as a result of redistricting. When a sitting officeholder challenges another incumbent, the challenger is not considered an incumbent because they did not fully benefit from the incumbency advantage.
- 2. No regular state legislative elections were held in Louisiana and Mississippi in 2013 or 2014. New Jersey is excluded from this analysis because many candidates raise money via joint candidate committees, hindering the ability to analyze individual candidate fundraising.
- 3. Open-seat races are those in which none of the candidates are incumbents.
- 4. In the eight multiple-seat-district states, any number of candidates may run for any number of seats in a single district and the top vote-getters win. This is unlike two other multiple-seat district states (Idaho and Washington) in which candidates run for a specific position within the district.
- 5. Philip Grey, “Reedy Defeats Tidwell in Tenn. House District 74,” The Leaf-Chronicle, November 4, 2014, available from http://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/tennessee/2014/11/04/tennessee-house-district-results/18492573/, accessed October 13, 2015.
- 6. Washington Secretary of State, Elections and Voting, November 4, 2014 General Election Results, Legislative District 35 - State Representative Pos. 1, available from http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20141104/Legislative-District-35-State-Representative-Pos-1.html, accessed October 13, 2015.
- 7. Rep. Awana represented District 44, which was redistricted to HD43 near the end of her tenure. She was a Republican until 2007.
- 8. Lee Davidson, “Utah Democrats lose 3 House seats they thought they’d won,” The Salt Lake Tribune, November 4, 2014, available from http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842877-155/election-county-seats-lake-rep-republican, accessed October 9, 2015.
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!