The Year of the Anti-LGBTQ+ Law: How Anti-LGBTQ+ Rhetoric and Messaging Create Real Harm to the LGBTQ+ Community

Anti-LGBTQ+ bills are being introduced across the nation at a startling pace. What communications strategies are behind this rise in legislation, and is it working?

We are only a third of the way through 2023, but it has already made history as one of the most prolific years in history for anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the United States. Currently, almost 400 anti-LGBTQ+ bills are working their way through state legislatures from Maine to Florida to Oregon and everywhere in between. The vigorous pace of these bills, almost entirely put forward by Republican lawmakers, follows a marked turn in GOP messaging. Republican and conservative politicians, media stars, and activists have painted the LGBTQ+ community, specifically the transgender community, as threats to the safety of both children and the country’s moral values. These attacks are nothing new for the LGBTQ+ community, but how did we get to this point after decades of advances in LGBTQ+ rights?

Anti-transgender rhetoric from the GOP began ramping up heading into the 2022 midterm elections. Candidates across the party largely embraced the rhetoric when invoking “parental rights” around educational issues, which was a key message deployed by conservative campaigns. However, it soon spread to a broader message against “wokeness,” and conspiracy theories and misinformation ran rampant about children being forced to undergo gender-reassignment surgeries. While medical experts were quick to denounce these false claims, the anti-transgender and anti-LGBTQ+ narrative had already been widely established.

Through reframing the election as a moral battle, the party stoked deep-seated fears and uncertainties about transgender people and the broader LGBTQ+ community while also feeding into anti-LGBTQ+ bias from key components of the party’s base. The result was a nationwide effort to restrict LGBTQ+ people’s basic rights and attack a community that enjoys broader public support than at any time in history.

Is this line of rhetoric effective, though? If the sheer volume of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is not enough evidence, then public opinion confirms its appeal.

Public support for the LGBTQ+ community often ends at discussions around transgender and non-binary folks’ rights, and polls clearly demonstrate this divide. For instance, the public is widely accepting of same-sex marriage and rights for gays and lesbians. However, public support plummets for gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth or transgender women competing in women’s sports or using women’s restrooms. While it may be shocking to see the public’s reticence to embrace transgender rights, there may be a more subtle communications strategy at play.

The public consistently overestimates the number of gay and lesbian people in the U.S. Gallup poll data from as far back as 2002 show that Americans consistently believe approximately 20-25 percent of the population identifies as gay or lesbian. While the percentage of self-identifying LGBTQ+ people has increased over time, just over seven percent of Americans identified as LGBTQ+ in 2022. Though most polls do not separate transgender people from LGBTQ+ people when gathering public estimates, one can safely assume the public believes there are far more transgender people in the U.S. than there actually are.

For the record, there are approximately 1.6 million transgender people in the nation, which includes around 300,000 transgender youth between the ages of 13 and 17, though the true number may be higher since not all transgender folks openly identity as such due to safety concerns or other factors. Overall, transgender people comprise around half a percent of the U.S. population.

2021 Gallup data reveals that only 31 percent of Americans have a friend, relative, or coworker who has personally told them they are transgender. Since the vast majority of Americans have likely not met someone who is transgender or non-binary, it is exceptionally likely that they rely on public perceptions, media outlets, friends, family, coworkers, and other members of their community to understand what it means to be transgender or non-binary. So, when the Republican party and conservative commentators begin describing queer people as groomers and pedophiles, or call for transgender people to be “eradicated,” people may be more likely to rely on these misguided and false notions of LGBTQ+ people than step back to evaluate their own experiences with or understanding of the community.

The chasm between public perception and reality is a significant problem, and it is that space between where conservative pundits and political leaders have pounced to stoke fear and division instead of understanding and acceptance. Words carry a lot of power, and rhetoric, especially malicious rhetoric painting an entire community as dangerous, can cause serious harm to those being targeted. Here, Republican leaders and conservative pundits are manipulating  public bias and genuinely innocent public misunderstandings of LGBTQ+ people to score political points while an entire community’s rights are being taken away.

Now, state legislatures across the country have introduced a range of deeply anti-LGBTQ+ policies seeking to limit everything from LGBTQ+-focused books in classrooms to drag shows to access to live-saving gender affirming healthcare for transgender youth.

Tennessee, Utah, Mississippi, and South Dakota joined Alabama and Arkansas in banning gender-affirming healthcare services for transgender youth this year. The State Commission for Human Rights in Alaska removed information from its website listing public accommodation discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation as illegal. Arizona’s legislature introduced bills that would ban pronouns that do not align with a student’s sex at birth, reclassify drag shows as adult cabaret performances and prohibit them in certain locations, and require students to use restrooms aligning with their sex at birth.

Some states have moved in an even more extreme direction. For instance, Arkansas introduced a bill that would criminalize transgender people’s use of public restrooms in certain instances. Florida is considering bills to deem gender-affirming healthcare services as child abuse and a bill that would remove transgender youth receiving or likely to receive gender-affirming healthcare, or whose parents or siblings receive gender-affirming care, from their families. Tennessee implemented a ban on drag shows when a minor is present or if it is within 1,000 feet of a school, place of worship, or public park. Tennessee and Iowa have also introduced bills to overturn marriage equality for same-sex couples in their states, a matter the U.S. Supreme Court settled in 2015.

Republicans who oppose these blatant attacks are often met with fierce criticism from their fellow party members. For example, U.S. Representative Tony Gonzales (TX-23) was censured by the Texas Republican Party for publicly supporting marriage equality when he voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act last year. The Des Moines County Republican Party in Iowa also censured fellow U.S. Representative Marinette Miller-Meeks for supporting the bill. In the U.S. Senate, Republican Senators Joni Ernst of Iowa and Todd Young of Indiana were likewise censured by county Republican parties in their states for supporting the bill. These measures against solidly conservative members of Congress are further evidence of the widespread anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and messaging ploys within the Republican Party.

Despite the fierce assault on LGBTQ+ folks, people across the country are standing up for the community. Governor Tom Walz of Minnesota ordered state agencies to ensure transgender youth have access gender-affirming care in the state. Michigan’s legislature passed a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and Governor Gretchen Whitmer is expected to sign it. In Nebraska, Democratic state Senator Machaela Cavanaugh has vowed to filibuster a bill in the unicameral legislature that would ban access to gender-affirming care. In Utah, Republican state Senator Daniel Thatcher has repeatedly defied his party and both voted against and spoken out against anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

The political situation facing LGBTQ+ folks is dire, and these anti-LGBTQ+ bills advancing around the country are no joke. While some elected officials in both parties are pushing back against these bills, the Republican line of rhetoric against queer people, namely transgender and non-binary people, is proving effective at both dividing the public and manipulating well-intentioned (and not-so-well-intentioned) people by presenting a warped view of who LGBTQ+ people are.

Queer people are not a threat to our children, to our culture, or to our morality, regardless of what some may have you believe. We are your neighbors, family members, friends, fellow community members, and classmates. We have hopes and dreams and fears, just like you. We want the same things you do: a safe environment for our kids to grow and learn, a better future for our families and communities, and a world where we can celebrate differences of all types. Demonizing us does not help anyone, but it does hurt us.

Words are powerful. For many, anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric may only be a small part of your day, but for LGBTQ+ folks, our entire lives are impacted by it. Political leaders, communicators, and strategists should always be wary of attacking communities for personal or political gain.

Political Messaging 101: How Not To Message Your Legislation

The GOP introduced a bill to eliminate the income tax and create a nationwide sales tax. Yet, the bill is flopping. What is their messaging strategy, and is it effective?

Welcome back, Campaigners! Today’s issue launches Edition 3, which features a new layout with the same thoughtful approach to some of the foremost emerging trends in policy, political communications, and campaigns.

As The Campaigner’s one-year anniversary is quickly approaching, I want to thank you for reading and subscribing. Readers like you make this newsletter possible. Thank you for your tireless support, and please take a second to share this newsletter to a coworker, friend, or family member.

 In The Know: The Campaigner will periodically feature new segments designed to provide practical advice on designing campaign strategies that work.

·      Political Messaging 101 and Political Messaging 202 are new segments of The Campaigner designed to analyze what makes or breaks a political message. Watch for them in future issues, as they will periodically pop up.

o   Political Messaging 101 looks into messaging fundamentals, how to keep supporters in your corner, and how to possibly pick up a few along the way.

o   Political Messaging 202 focuses on strategies to maximize your reach, create the most persuasive political message, and put yourself ahead of the curve with the public.

Now, let’s dive into today’s issue.

-------------

We are only a few weeks into 2023, yet House Republicans are already poking the political bear. GOP representatives, backed by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (CA-20), are preparing hearings on a bill to eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a flat national sales tax.

The Fair Tax Act, a long-time conservative policy goal introduced this legislative session by GOP Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01), seeks to implement a nominal 23 percent national sales tax on goods in 2025 with rate adjustments in the following years. However, the actual tax rate would be around 30 percent according to economists and tax policy experts, as the 23 percent figure is the “tax-inclusive” rate. It also eliminates the national income tax, payroll tax, and gift and estate tax, all of which are highly disfavored among conservatives. Most controversially, the bill would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and disperse tax collection duties to the states and other federal agencies.

How We Got Here

The implementation of a flat national sales tax has been a conservative priority for decades, with a version of the Fair Tax Act introduced to Congress since 1999. Despite the idea’s long-running existence, it has only received support from a handful of House Republicans, especially from those among the deeply conservative edges of the Republican Party.

Today, Republican support remains tepid at best. Even Speaker McCarthy indicated his opposition to the bill. Why? There are three reasons: political maneuvering, poor policy design, and bad messaging.

First, the bill is receiving consideration as part of Speaker McCarthy’s concessions to hardline conservatives who refused to support him for Speaker of the House. By promising a vote on the bill, he secured more of the votes he needed to become Speaker. Had a few House members not been so adamantly opposed to his nomination, the bill would likely have remained at the bottom of the priority list.

The small group of representatives pushing for the bill have also been among the most critical opponents of President Biden’s $80 billion funding bump to hire more IRS staff. The GOP-led House has already repealed this funding provision, but it seems the Fair Tax Act bill is one more political message to the White House that increased IRS funding will not go far on Capitol Hill this legislative session.

Second, tax policy experts and economists point out that, while the top one percent of earners would see annual tax savings of around $75,000.00, the bottom 90 percent of earners would see their tax bills increase substantially under this bill. The cost of everyday essentials, from clothing to food to fuel and more, would rise significantly for the vast majority of Americans, but low-income communities would be hit the hardest. It would also scatter tax collecting and record-keeping responsibilities among state and federal agencies, which would create an arduous and ineffective process for collecting sales taxes. Additionally, policy experts estimate that a 30 percent or so national sales tax would be needed to maintain the current funding levels for the government. Some estimates run higher depending on how it is measured.

Essentially, the bill would upend the modern tax system as we know it, increase the cost of living for almost everyone except the highest income earners, and create a sprawling and disjointed system for collecting taxes. No matter how you look at it, this bill is simply bad policy. 

The last, and perhaps the most impactful, reason the bill has not taken off is due to a lackluster messaging effort from conservatives. As large swaths of the Republican Party are either doubtful the bill has a chance at passing or firmly disagree with the bill, there is a gaping lack of a cohesive message.

Messaging that Works

There are two types of communications in the political world: successful examples others should emulate, and case studies of what not to do. The Fair Tax Act falls into the latter category, so here are some pitfalls it shows us.

1.     Frame for a Following

An essential element of any political communication campaign is framing, and it is vital to know your policy or political angle when launching a campaign. However, if the message is framed incorrectly, is not concise, or is unclear, it may prove more alienating than empowering for your base.

Here, the messaging’s fatal flaw is that the bill is confusing to the public. It is purported as a flat national sales tax of 23 percent at the time a good is purchased. However, this calculation is “tax-inclusive,” meaning that if you purchase $100 worth of goods and pay $30 in taxes on those goods, you arrive at a “tax-inclusive” rate of 23 percent by dividing the total value of the goods ($130) by the amount of tax paid ($30). There is no correct way to describe a sales tax rate, and Republicans have not clearly addressed what the terms “tax-inclusive” or “tax-exclusive” mean. The message is too complicated to be compelling.

If you have to spend this much time explaining the core tenet of your bill, you lost your audience back at the first line. It is crucial to clearly and concisely explain what your bill does to find success. Do not make people assume anything about your bill; tell them in plain language (preferably a sentence or two) and you are more likely to keep your supporters in your corner.

In short, stick to the Three C’s of communication (be clear, concise, and compelling) while providing a persuasive frame that helps to sway people to your side. A message following this rule is a message that wins that day.

2.     Pay Attention to the Public

Public opinion is often cited as a political rationale for proposing certain bills. However, in messaging, public opinion is not always what you might assume or what conventional wisdom may hold.

For instance, conventional political wisdom holds that Americans hate taxes and will frequently push back against any newly proposed tax. In reality, this is not necessarily true. According to the Brookings Institute, 90 percent of Americans feel that paying taxes is a civic duty. The Pew Research Center found that majorities of both parties held positive views of the IRS in 2020. Overall, two-thirds of respondents in that Pew report held favorable views of the IRS, which appears to run contrary to conventional wisdom.

The data suggest that Americans do not dislike taxes as much as they dislike feeling that the tax system is unfair, and the true issue seems to be a misperception of the federal tax system. A 2022 CBS News poll found that 47 percent of Americans felt they were paying “about the right amount” of taxes, while 45 percent felt they were paying more than their fair share. In a 2021 Pew Research Center report, 59 percent of survey respondents felt that corporations and wealthy people were not paying their fair share in taxes.

Political scientists and policy researchers also suggest that most people are willing to complete their civic duty of paying taxes as long as other people are doing so. The public’s views on taxes are complicated, and while easy to paint the public with a broad brush, nuance tells the real story in a more compelling manner. 

Do your research, know what people from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences think about your issue, and then accurately represent the public’s views in your message.

3.     Always Anticipate the Response

Since this bill has been given prominent attention from the Speaker and other House Republicans, Democrats are having a field day on their messaging front. The overarching message? The bill will make the cost of living much more expensive with no extra benefits. That simple message is effective, and there is little to no response from the bill’s proponents to combat Democrats’ assertion.

Had Republicans developed a message that not only stated how the bill would work but also addressed these concerns from the beginning, they might not be in the messaging pit they are now. Given the backdrop of a rollercoaster of economic events over the past three years, widespread uncertainty about the economy’s future, and lingering concerns about inflation, the bills seems tone-deaf. Timing is immensely important when launching a campaign, and proposing a bill as a solution to a problem that, arguably, does not exist while larger economic concerns go largely untouched is a problem. Optically, it does not look good to the public, especially since the rising cost of living has already squeezed millions of Americans’ budgets. To make matters worse, Republicans do not seem to have a coherent reason for why this bill should be enacted, why now, and how it will help people in their everyday lives. The lack of explanation gives Democrats ample opportunity to paint the bill as they please, and they have wasted no time doing so.

In political communications, your opponent will always have something to say about your policy or position. If you do not have a sound answer to the concerns or allegations raised, you lose. Most importantly, if you have no response to opponents’ claims, you lost before you started. With only one line of argument before them, the public will assume the existing argument, whatever it may be, is more likely true than not. However, if you can cut off an opponent’s argument against your proposal before they even launch it, you are immensely more likely to succeed. It seems simple, but anticipating an opponent’s response is often overlooked when thinking through persuasive framing.

The golden rule in competitive political communication is, if you do not define your position/bill/etc., then your opponent with define it for you. Do not hand your opponent the keys to shutting down your message. Be proactive, plan ahead, and leave room to adjust as needed when messaging attacks commence.

By following these steps, which are easier said than done, you will have a sound foundation from which to launch your messaging campaign. With vigilance, adaptability, and additional research, you stand a good chance of giving your supporters a message they can get behind while possibly adding more supporters to your corner.

Do you have questions or comments about this issue? Let me know! Comment below or reach out through Substack/LinkedIn to chat. I welcome the chance to chat and get to know you better.

Likewise, check out a new fixture of The Campaigner below, More Food for Thought

See you next time!

-------

More Food for Thought:

1.     The Atlantic – A National Sales Tax Is A Terrible Idea (Perspective by anti-tax thought leader Grover Norquist)

2.     The Week – Why (Some) Republicans Want a National Sales Tax (Left-leaning perspective)

3.     The Tax Policy Center – What Is A National Retail Sales Tax? (Think-tank perspective)

The Independent Electorate: Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s Registration as an Independent and What It Means

Following Senator Kyrsten Sinema's disaffiliation with the Democratic Party sent shockwaves through the political system. Are independents on the verge of a political breakthrough?

Hey there Campaigner,

With the end of the year quickly approaching, I hope you and your loved ones are having a wonderful holiday season. I just finished the semester, and I am looking forward to a restful break. Do you have any exciting holiday plans you’d like to share or just want to talk about politics? If so, let me know! I am always happy to chat with subscribers and get to know you all.

This issue wraps up Edition 2 of The Campaigner, and the newsletter will enter a brief hiatus for the holidays. Don’t worry though, you can expect Edition 3 of The Campaigner to drop in early February with more cutting-edge trends and analysis headed your way.

To make sure you don’t miss the launch of Edition 3 and to receive this newsletter earlier than the social media networks, sign up for The Campaigner on Substack to get these updates sent straight to your inbox. Click subscribe to join today!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema recently left the Democratic Party and declared herself to be an independent. With over a third of the U.S. electorate identifying as independent, are independent candidates and incumbents on the verge of an electoral breakthrough?

Only days after U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) secured his return to Washington with a resounding defeat of his run-off opponent, Hershel Walker, the newly claimed Senate majority for Democrats was once again in jeopardy. On December 9, U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona announced she was leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent.

The news shocked the political system that has long operated around two central parties. However, Sinema’s party change reflects a broader shift away from partisan identities among the American electorate. Based on a 2020 report from the Pew Research, approximately 34 percent of the country’s eligible voters identified as independents, 33 percent identified as Democrats, and 29 percent identified as Republicans. A Gallup poll found that, in the first quarter of 2021, over 40 percent identified as independent, 30 percent identified as Democrats, and 25 percent identified as Republicans. FiveThirtyEight also examined Gallup poll data and found that approximately 33 percent of the electorate identified as independents in the 1980s, compared to more than 40 percent today.

The data indicate that, even though the percentage of Democratic and Republican partisan affiliation has remained relatively stable for the past few decades, a slowly but steadily growing group of voters do not identify with either party. In order to understand why this change is important, we must first take a step back to examine the broader picture of American voters.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 report on voting and registration is a helpful guide to get started. The report indicates that 155 million people voted out of approximately 232 million eligible voters nationwide, and 2020 had one of the largest turnout rates for a presidential election in decades. The electorate is increasingly racially diverse, with Latinx voters being the fastest growing group of eligible voters followed closely by Asian American voters. More than half of voters (52 percent) are over age 50, and around 36 percent of voters have a college degree.

The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing independent voters is that few voters are actually independent in their candidate preferences. According to a 2019 Pew Research report, a whopping 81 percent of independent voters still consistently lean towards one party or another, with some variation of course. The report found only around seven percent of eligible voters do not affiliate with or lean towards a particular party. Interestingly, that seven percent or so of the U.S. electorate who do not lean towards any party are also less likely to register to vote and actually vote than their partisan counterparts.

While a sizable portion of voters identify as independent, there were only two federal elected officials who identify as independents: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Maine Senator Angus King. Despite their independent status, both senators caucus with the Democrats. No members of the House of Representatives are independents, and only a handful of state elected officials claim the independent label.

So, what does all of this mean for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema? Are we likely to see an emerging wave of candidates and officials becoming independents?

The short answer is no, we are very likely not going to see such a wave. As the data shows, a strong majority of American voters are partial to one party or the other. Likewise, the share of voters who do not lean towards any particular party is sizable enough to swing certain states in national elections, but it is not enough to send numerous independent officials to state houses or Congress. As these voters are spread out across the country, their power to elect third party or nonpartisan candidates is diminished.

The party change puts Sen. Sinema in an interesting position, and it creates new challenges for her should she decide to seek another term in 2024. Several polls throughout 2022 demonstrated that she is underwater in terms of support from Arizonans, especially among Democrats. A poll from August 2022 showed that only 42 percent of Arizona voters approved of her performance. Another poll from September revealed that only 36% of Arizona voters held favorable views of her, with 54 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of independents, and 57 percent of Democrats disapproving of her. A poll from early November found an astonishingly low percentage of Democrats—only 7 percent—approved of her performance. There is little reason to believe, based on these numbers, that her disaffiliating from the Democratic Party will help her become favorable to Arizonans, especially her former Democratic base.

To make matters more difficult for her, she is already facing a potential challenge from Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego (AZ-07). Over the past few weeks, he indicated he is considering a run for the seat and stated he will make a decision after the holidays. If Rep. Gallego runs, Sen. Sinema will likely lose a solid portion of the Democratic voters who sent her to Washington.

Likewise, it is unclear whether Republicans would be willing to support her reelection, especially if a well-known Republican candidate enters the mix. Some officials such as outgoing Republican Governor Doug Ducey, Representative-elect Juan Ciscomani, and former gubernatorial candidate Karrin Taylor Robson are supposedly being considered for the state party’s nomination. As well-known figures across the state, the GOP may be much more willing to coalesce behind one of their own as opposed to a Democrat-turned-independent.

That leaves her with the independent voters, which comprise approximately 34 percent of the state’s registered voters. While a formidable portion of the electorate in this swing state, polls have consistently shown over the last few months that nearly 50 percent or more of independent voters do not approve of her performance.

Overall, the political landscape does not appear to be in Sen. Sinema’s favor, though with nearly two years until the election, much could change in the meantime. While Sen. Sinema’s announcement will continue to cause waves among elected officials and voters alike, it does not appear that voters’ reactions will lead to more federal and state officials leaving either party to become an independent. The upcoming congressional recess until the new year will also provide some time for the intensity of the announcement to cool off and time for both parties to figure out how to approach her going forward.

After this election, we could all use a break. Here’s hoping you can take some time for yourself over the next few weeks, and I wish you all a restful and happy holiday season!

The Emerging Electoral Realignment That Could Shake Up Politics As We Know It

Electoral realignment has happened periodically since the first political parties were founded, and the most recent presidential and midterm election results indicate such a shift may be developing.

Politics are in a constant state of change, even though that change is often gradual. Every so often, however, those changes build into emerging trends that alter the way we approach elections.

The midterm elections held a little over a week ago on November 8 are one such example. We knew there would be surprises, but some surprises were so significant that they bucked historic trends that have held for decades. I will dive into more specifics on longer term trends later, but here are some big picture highlights worth noting.

First, Democrats as a whole held their own incredibly well when almost every historical election result indicator was not in their favor. For instance, it is well known political wisdom that the party that does not hold the presidency typically does better in the midterm elections than the party in power. There are few outliers, and it appears that 2022 may be among them. Likewise, President Joe Biden’s low approval ratings and continuing concerns with inflation and a potential recession sent signals that voters may lean towards Republicans across the board. Despite these factors, Democrats maintained control of the Senate and appear on track to only narrowly lose the House. Democrats also managed to flip three governors’ seats (Massachusetts, Maryland, and Arizona) and held governors’ mansions in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin, and even Kansas. Republicans only flipped one gubernatorial seat in Nevada.

Second, after polling and speculation indicated that restrictions on reproductive rights and the overturning of Roe v. Wade would not be a major motivating factor for voters in the election, both exit polls and election results indicated this issue did encourage strong voter turnout. Of the five states that put reproductive rights ballot initiatives before voters, three states passed their measures protecting reproductive rights and two states voted down measures that would have restricted reproductive rights. These results spanned traditionally blue states, purple states, and  traditionally red states, and they also indicate that restrictions on reproductive rights may have reached the extent of their popularity.

Some of the results appeared to support broader emerging trends in terms of electoral realignments.

Historically, electoral realignments occur approximately every 30 to 40 years, and numerous political scientists consider the most recent significant realignment to have happened around 1980 with the rise of Reaganism. These changes do not occur in a vacuum, and numerous factors play into these developments, such as demographic changes, interstate population shifts, party issue stances, and economic conditions, to name a few. The COVID-19 pandemic, volatile economic conditions, and major shifts in where Americans live due to widespread remote work are all key factors that may expedite the emerging realignment.

Recently, notable trends have emerged in both congressional and presidential elections that lend evidence to a potential electoral shift. Overall, the data suggests the Northeast is growing redder, and the Southwest has gotten bluer. We have also seen particular states in other regions move away from historical political alignment trends.

Let’s start with the Northeast*. Often seen as one of the most solidly liberal parts of the country, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have become one of the key regional components of the Democratic base for decades. For example, with the exception of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, this region’s states have voted for the Democratic candidate in each presidential election since 1992 (New Hampshire voted for Pres. George W. Bush in 2000, and Pennsylvania narrowly broke for Pres. Donald Trump in 2016). Two states, Rhode Island and New York, only voted for a Republican presidential candidate once since 1976: both in 1984 for Pres. Ronald Reagan. Even the vote margins in presidential elections have held fairly steady among these states, with a couple of differing trends. For instance, since 2000, Vermont and Maine have trended slightly more blue over time, while Pennsylvania has become more competitive for both parties over that same time period. (Check out the American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara and 270toWin for more specific data on this and other regions/states discussed**).

However, the presidential election trends do not tell the whole story here. New York in particular has seen its U.S. House race margins in favors of Democrats thin, especially in the northern and western portions of the state. For example, in the 2010 midterms that resulted in the rise of the Tea Party and a loss of 63 Democratic House seats nationwide, five of New York’s districts flipped in favor of Republicans. Since 2010, Republican footing in upstate New York has held firm, and Democratic vote margins in traditionally deep-blue areas like Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany have narrowed. Similar trends have emerged in Connecticut since 2010, with the solid-blue state’s Democratic House and Senate margins tightening so much so that Republicans have increasingly indicated they see the opportunity to flip seats in recent years. While most of New England’s Democratic seats held out this cycle, much closer than expected races for a Connecticut Senate seat and a House seat in Rhode Island suggest the GOP may be on to something here.

Moving on to the sunny Southwest (which includes Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma for our purposes), we see a traditionally Republican-leaning region moving away from the GOP, and population shifts may be a significant cause. Among the nation’s 10 fastest growing states, five (Utah, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona) are in the Southwest, and of the 15 fastest growing cities in the country, 11 are in either Texas, Nevada, or Arizona.

The Southwest has a complicated history with both parties. Oklahoma and Utah have voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1976, and Texas has done so since 1980. Arizona has a more mixed record, voting with the Republican presidential candidate in all but two elections since 1976; it voted in favor of Pres. Bill Clinton in 1996 and Pres. Joe Biden in 2020. Colorado voted for the GOP somewhat reliably until 2008 when it broke for Pres. Barack Obama, and its other recent Democratic swing happened in 1992. The region’s most reliably blue states, New Mexico and Nevada, have consistently sided with Democratic presidential candidates since 2008. Nevada also went for Pres. Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and New Mexico has supported Democrats in all but one presidential cycle since 1992 (it voted for Pres. George W. Bush in 2004). Overall, only Oklahoma has remained a steady supporter of the Republican presidential candidate since 2000. While Texas and Utah have remained red states over that time, their vote margins have trended in favor of Democrats. Meanwhile, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico have trended towards Democratic candidates so substantially, they all have flipped away from the GOP, with Arizona crossing that threshold most recently.

The vote margins in House and Senate races also tell a similar story of the Southwest moving left. The GOP’s margins in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada have notably shrunk since 2010. The metro areas around Phoenix, Denver, and Las Vegas have seen the most significant shifts as these rapidly growing cities attract people from across the country. Likewise, all three states will maintain their solely Democratic Senate delegations as they have since 2020 following the recent re-elections of Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ), and Sen. Michael Bennet (CO), joining their neighbor, New Mexico, in this distinction. Whether the economic and demographic trends fueling the Southwest’s movement left will continue in earnest is unclear, but it is safe to say the region appears to be undergoing one of the most visible electoral realignments in the nation.

Some states are standing out in their regions as possible tell-tale signs of coming change, and it appears that both political parties are taking note. For instance, Ohio and Florida have notably shifted further right in recent elections. Considered the two of the country’s bellwether states, it appears they may be approaching the end of such an era. Democrats have experienced sliding margins in Ohio since 2012 and in Florida since 2008. While Ohio still has a Democratic senator (Sen. Sherrod Brown), Senator-elect J.D. Vance, a Republican, won a resounding victory last week. In Florida, a Democrat has not represented the state in the Senate since 2018, and House Democrats suffered serious losses there in 2020. Their numbers thinned further after this cycle, with Democrats only holding seven of 28 districts after two seats flipped. With their bellwether status beginning to look less certain, it appears states such as Pennsylvania are moving in to take their place.

Several Midwestern states also appear to be shifting right. In addition to Ohio, Missouri has firmly supported the GOP presidential candidate since 2000, and the Republican vote margin has only grown with time. A Democrat has not represented the state in the U.S. Senate since 2018, and the state has only had two Democratic representatives from the St. Louis and Kansas City areas, respectively, since 2012. Iowa is another state with a right-ward tilt. This formerly blue state has seen its Republican vote margins steadily increase since 2008, and the Democratic members of the state’s Congressional delegation are now entirely benched in an about-face from the state’s leftward swing in 2018.

Meanwhile, the South and Plains states hold a few outliers of their own. Georgia, once a conservative bastion of the Deep South, has now emerged as a swing state. Georgia became competitive as early as 2008, and the Peach State voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in two decades in 2020. The state’s move left is thanks in large part to the fast-growing, increasingly-liberal Atlanta metro area, which was instrumental in delivering the state for Pres. Joe Biden in 2020. The metro was also key to sending not one, but two, Democratic senators to Washington that same year, representing the first time a Democrat represented the state in the Senate since 2005. It is also important to note that these victories would not have been possible without the strong organizing efforts and high turnout rates of the state’s Black voters, especially Black women. Georgia’s newfound status as a swing state will continue to keep the nation’s attention as we await the highly anticipated Senate runoff between incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and Herschel Walker (R) on December 6.

Another state that is indicating a blue shift is Kansas. Over the past few years, the state has offered several political surprises. In 2018, the Sunflower State elected Laura Kelly as governor, making her the first Democrat to hold the office in over a decade, and the state’s Third Congressional District also elected the nation’s first lesbian Native American woman, Rep. Sharice Davids (D), to the U.S. House of Representatives that year. This year, Kansas not only re-elected both Gov. Kelly and Rep. Davids, but it also voted down a state constitutional amendment that would have removed protections for abortion access in August following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Likewise, the Republican voter margin in presidential elections has shown some decline since 2012. Though still a safely red state, Kansas appears to be trending towards a slow-but-steady electoral shift left largely fueled by the growing Kansas City suburbs.

There are still ample opportunities for these trends to shift for any number of reasons over the coming years, but the available data suggests shifting political headwinds are on the horizon in communities large and small across the nation. The full range of political consequences of those changes remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: change is the only constant in politics.

I wish you all a safe, happy, and healthy holiday season with your loved ones!

*Regions listed are defined for the purposes of this analysis by the author and are not based on U.S. Census definitions.

**Analysis of election results since 1976 is based on available overlapping data from both World Economic Forum and 270toWin.

Vigilantes and Voting: How Rhetoric around Election Fraud Led to Armed Vigilantes Monitoring Election Processes

Unsupported claims of election fraud by Republican candidates have taken center stage in our upcoming elections on Tuesday. How did we get to this point, and what does it mean for those voting soon?

The 2022 midterm elections are shaping up to be among the most unique elections in U.S. history. The overturning of Roe v. Wade, inflation, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and persistently unproven and false claims of voter fraud have all influenced the course of this election cycle, from a Democratic surge in the summer to Republicans’ resurgence in the polls over the last few weeks. Now, a new challenge has entered the chat: vigilantes monitoring and filming voters dropping off their ballots at ballot drop boxes across the country.

A series of concerning events involving both armed and masked vigilantes monitoring ballot drop boxes has arisen over the last few weeks in Arizona. On October 19, a complaint of voter intimidation was submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office about “camo-clad people” who were standing in the parking lot near a ballot drop box taking photos of voters’ cars and license plates. When the group was approached by a voter who asked for their names and what they were doing, the group asked why he wanted to know and that they were taking photos for “election security” purposes.

On Friday, October 21, the Maricopa County Sherriff’s department responded to armed individuals wearing camo and tactical gear who were monitoring the same ballot drop box in Mesa, Arizona. The Arizona League of Women Voters also filed a lawsuit alleging voter intimidation against a group of people monitoring ballot drop boxes in rural Yavapai County. The groups named in the Yavapai County lawsuit include the Lions of Liberty, LLC, the Yavapai Preparedness Team, and Clean Elections USA, which is based in Texas. The lawsuit alleges that the Lions of Liberty and Yavapai Preparedness Team are connected with the Oath Keepers of Yavapai County. Together, these organizations appear to be engaged in a coordinated effort to watch Arizona ballot drop off boxes known as Operation: Drop Box according to now deleted portions of the Lions of Liberty website. The website asked volunteers to take photos of voters, their cars, and their license plates if they were seen dropping off more ballots than their own at the drop boxes.

As of October 24, the Arizona Secretary of State’s office had forwarded four complaints of voter intimidation to federal and state law enforcement, including a complaint stating that a voter was harassed by a group wearing camouflage who were monitoring a ballot drop box in downtown Phoenix.

Other allegations of voter and poll worker intimidation are arising in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, as Republican state and local officials are dispatching election monitors to further scrutinize ballot processing measures.

In Pennsylvania, Mary McCord, a former Department of Justice prosecutor and the current director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said she received reports that one county’s law enforcement officers are requesting people’s qualifications to vote.

These nationwide voter intimidation tactics are not new, but they have been revived at a scale and to a degree that has not been seen before in modern politics.

With numerous reports of voter intimidation popping up around the country, you might be asking yourself, why is such a coordinated effort being undertaken? And why now? The answer has to do with right-wing conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud, including a debunked film known as “2000 Mules” that was released in May of this year. The film claims that certain people (called mules, a word associated with the illegal drug trade) were paid to travel to different ballot drop boxes and stuff them with fraudulent votes. The film creators used cellphone geolocation data (which has been shown to be inaccurate) and other private data sources to make a case that election fraud occurred on a large scale in 2020, especially in states like Arizona. The film also selected particular clips of surveillance footage to attempt to prove voter fraud in Georgia. Seen as fact by many right-wing conspiracy theorists, the film added more fuel to the fire former President Trump started among Republican voters in 2016.

The fact of the matter is simple: voter fraud did not flip the 2020 presidential election nor any other election in favor of Democratic candidates, and voter fraud itself is extremely rare. A law professor who is now a White House advisor stated that, between 2000 and 2014, over 1 billion votes were cast with only 31 credible cases–you read that right, 31 credible cases–of someone voting in someone else’s name. Even among mail-in ballots, which Republican candidates widely claimed led to fraud, the Electronic Registration Information Center and the Washington Post found only 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of a deceased person among the 14.6 million votes cast by mail between 2016 and 2018.

Despite these facts, numerous Republican candidates are leaning into a false and unsupported narrative of widespread voter fraud. Gubernatorial candidates Kari Lake of Arizona, Tudor Dixon of Michigan, Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania, Dan Cox of Maryland, and Derek Schmidt of Kansas are all among numerous gubernatorial candidates who have amplified election fraud rhetoric or supported overturning the results of the 2020 election. Perhaps more concerning, numerous Republican candidates for secretary of state, who oversee election processes in most states, have also supported claims of election fraud from Nevada to Massachusetts to Michigan to Alabama.

With numerous high-level candidates and officials endorsing these false claims, especially in swing states, it is not surprising to find that the public is uneasy about trusting election results. According to a Fox News poll conducted between October 9 and October 12 as reported by the Washington Post, 55 percent of respondents were concerned about voter fraud. Notably, 73 percent of Republican respondents were concerned with voter fraud compared to 36 percent of Democratic respondents.

The disparity between Republicans and Democrats in terms of trusting election results is also supported by the findings of a recent Pew Research Center survey conducted between October 10 and October 16. In that survey, 88 percent of Democratic respondents said they felt the 2022 election will be administered very or somewhat well, an increase from the 72 percent who felt the same way in 2020. In contrast, 56 percent of Republican respondents felt the 2022 election will be administered very or somewhat well, a minor increase from 50 percent who said the same about 2020. Interestingly, only 26 percent of respondents supporting Republican candidates said they were very confident votes would be accurately counted in the 2022 election, a substantial decrease from 2020 when 48 percent of respondents supporting Republican candidates said the same.

The rhetoric surrounding false allegations of election fraud undermines public faith in our electoral process, which is a foundational element of our democratic republic, and it is clearly impacting how people engage with elections. This reality raises many serious questions, such as what happens if candidates like Kari Lake or Tudor Dixon do not accept the results of their elections if they lose? How do we restore public faith in our electoral system when candidates continue pushing misleading narratives based on lies of election fraud? More importantly, now that armed vigilantes are engaging in voter intimidation, how do we ensure voters’ safety and protect the right to vote for the public?

Here in Arizona, we are seeing a rapid shift in how officials are addressing voter intimidation concerns. On October 28, a federal district court judge refused to grant a temporary injunction that would prevent any vigilantes from engaging in harassment or intimidation of voters. In his order, the judge found that there are significant First Amendment considerations that would be violated by restricting these actions, and he went on to state that these actors were not “true threats.” I cannot help but question why the rights of armed individuals who conceal their identity while intimidating and harassing voters seemingly outweighs the public interest of casting a vote in a safe manner without intimidation, threats, or harassment.

On October 31, the Justice Department also expressed concern about these voter intimidation complaints by issuing a statement of interest indicating that the vigilantes’ actions are likely illegal under the Voting Rights Act.

In a turn of events, the same federal judge issued an order requiring that all those monitoring a ballot drop box must remain 75 feet away from the box and clarified false statements made about state election law on November 2. It also requires all monitors with firearms and body armor to remain at least 250 feet away from the box. The order comes after the judge heard from a voter in Mesa who was approached at a ballot drop box by people claiming they were looking for “mules.” With just under a week to go until the election, it remains to be seen whether the vigilantes will abide by this order or if the order will be enforced through Election Day.  

Keep in mind, all of this is happening during early voting periods. As evidenced by the case in Harris County, Texas, there are numerous groups across the country that fully intend to scrutinize every aspect of the election, and it seems all but certain to ramp up on Election Day. As we navigate a truly unusual election cycle, the possibility of election-related violence continues to grow, and poll workers are among the most likely to experience the worst results from the election conspiracy theories. The FBI has already identified seven states (Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada) experiencing upticks in serious threats towards poll workers, and jurisdictions across the nation are reporting staffing shortages amid safety concerns. A poll from the Brennan Center for Justice conducted at the beginning of this year found that nearly a third of poll workers knew at least one colleague who quit out of concern for their safety.

There are numerous challenges and valid concerns with voting this year, but it is times like these where our votes and our voices matter most. It is easy to become discouraged with the negative news stories and noise that often surround our politics, but at the end of the day, our leaders are still making decisions that impact each and every one of us for better or worse. That reality does not change if we decide to forego our opportunity to speak up about the needs of our communities and elect competent, empathetic, and thoughtful leaders. We will continue to face challenges to our democratic institutions going forward, just as we have always faced them. The difference is whether or not we will do something to resolve those challenges. Benjamin Franklin, when asked whether our nation had a republic or a monarchy at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, cleverly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Generations of Americans before us worked towards creating a more perfect Union by protecting and expanding the right to vote. Now, it is up to us, the American public, to continue that work and keep our republic.  

Stay safe out there as you head to the polls, be sure to thank your local election workers, and encourage your friends and family to get out and vote on Tuesday!