NOV. 14, 2014 -- Despite post-election reports of the demise of the S.C. Democratic Party, notice of its death is, like Mark Twain’s, premature, analysts suggest.

Ten days ago, South Carolina Republicans swept the state’s constitutional offices, keeping safe the party’s 9-0 advantage that it had before the general election. In the S.C. House, Republicans picked up one new seat to now control 79 of 124 seats.

Some might interpret those results as a huge victory; others might reflect how they’re just the status quo.

“I think it is a mistake to make too much out of the results from one election,” said College of Charleston political science chair Gibbs Knotts. “I’ve found that Southern states that are urbanizing and growing have the best prospects for Democrats. North Carolina, Virginia and Florida are three good examples.”

In 2014, for example, two thirds of the U.S. Senate seats up for election were held by Democratic incumbents. They got trounced and will turn over control of the chamber in January. But with margin between the two parties very narrow, the chamber could flip again in 2016, a presidential election year which generally favors Democrats. Add that the GOP will be defending two thirds of their seats up for grabs, which will put them in a stickier situation and make it easier for Democrats to regain control.

But what about South Carolina?

Over the next two decades, South Carolina will turn browner, as more Hispanics move into the state. Such a dynamic generally is considered to favor Democrats. A few years back, observers John Judis and Ruy Teixeira predicted Democrats would have an emerging national majority as minority populations gained more strength. (In 2010, the white majority in Mississippi dropped to 60 percent; in South Carolina, it is 68 percent.) 

As South Carolina’s diversity increases, Democrats could benefit if they register new voters and get them to the polls, which did not happen in 2014. Turnout overall was abysmally low in the recent election at 43.8 percent, some 8 points less than turnout of 51.9 percent in 2010. 

You can get an idea about what happened with voting in the Palmetto State by looking at the results from the governor’s race. According to SCVotes.org, Gov. Nikki Haley received just 6,120 votes more in 2014 than four years earlier. But Democratic challenger Vincent Sheheen, who ran a close race in 2010, got 114,268 fewer votes in the 2014 contest.

A look at exit polling data, however, shines a deeper light on the electorate’s behavior this year. These numbers appear to show that Democrats got much of their traditional base, which should be encouraging to them for the future. The difference? They just didn’t get enough people out to vote to make races competitive.   

• Dems got the young. The Democrat, Sheheen, got more voters under 45 years old, beating Haley by 20 points among those 18 to 29 and by 3 points of those 20 to 44. Another result showed Sheheen won voters age 30 to 39 by a 58-40 percent margin. By contrast, Haley walloped Sheheen by 19 points among voters 45 to 64 and by a two-to-one margin with voters who were 65 and older.  Over time, this could help Democrats as older, conservative voters die off.
  
  
• Dems got females. Democrats also narrowly captured the female vote by a 50-48 margin in the gubernatorial race. Men, however, voted 65 percent to 33 percent for Haley, according to exit polling.
  
  
• Dems got blacks. Democrats continued to dramatically outpace Republicans in capturing more than 90 percent of the black vote. That’s about the same rate that blacks voted in 2010. But the lower overall turnout suggests that not as many blacks actually turned out at the polls, which hurt Sheheen.
  
  
• Dems got moderates. More moderates voted for Sheheen by a 55-43 percent margin. But they made up 41 percent of the electorate. Some 85 percent of conservatives, which comprised 43 percent of the electorate, voted for Haley. That was almost the exact percentage that liberals (16 percent of the electorate) voted for Sheheen.
  
  
• Haley got independent men. The governor captured 55 percent of the independent vote, according to the poll. Based on other results in the poll, it’s fairly clear that most of those independents were white males, who flocked away from Sheheen. (The poll shows Haley won independent men by a 64-28 percent margin, but lost independent women by a 50-44 percent margin.
  
  
• Dems got the working class. Democrats captured voters in families earning less than $50,000 by almost 20 points -- a 58-39 margin. Sheheen also was competitive with families earning under $100,000, losing by just two points. But he lost miserably -- 68 percent to 29 percent -- among voters in families with incomes of more than $100,000.

Lessons for Democrats

Common reasons given for the blowout this year? Poor turnout overall, ineffective messaging and strategic errors by Sheheen’s camp, and satisfaction with the incumbent’s job on growing jobs. 

One mainstream Republican voter last year, for example, was so fed up with Haley that he asked for a “Republicans for Sheheen” sticker. But for this voter, the Democrat stumbled strategically in the waning days of the campaign by trying to use the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds as a wedge issue. That, said this voter who grudgingly cast a ballot for Haley, turned off a lot of Republicans who were looking for something fresh, not old political battles to be fought.

Others observed that Democrats didn’t “close the deal” with voters. Democrats may have had a lot of data on potential voters, but they suffered “death by data,” as New York Times columnist David Brooks has suggested, because they didn’t attract their people to go to the polls.

“In the age of technology, of social media, of "what's trending", campaigns and candidates have forgotten it's still ultimately about the relationship with the voter or the stakeholder,” said Greenville analyst Chip Felkel, chief advocacy innovator at The RAP Index. “Relationships move people. People move issues, move momentum in campaigns. It's the people who have a vote, or affected by an issue, not Twitter.”

Bottom line: South Carolina Democrats just didn’t close the deal in 2014. But they’re far from toast.  The overall results -- the same party controlling the constitutional offices and a House that’s little changed -- may just indicate less of a problem with Democrats than with contentedness with Republicans in charge. Had people really been upset at Democrats in South Carolina, the GOP would have picked up more House seats and would have toppled Democratic control of county councils in places like Charleston County.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.  He can be reached at:  brack@statehousereport.com.

RECENT NEWS STORIES

• 11/7:  Election -isms in South Carolina
• 10/31:  Report says communities should craft destinies
• 10/24:  Leadership styles of next governor
• 10/17:  State superintendent's race: Turnabout is fall play
• 10/3: DSS is "worse than we though
  
  

• Ethics. The House Ethics and Freedom of Information Study Committee will meet in 516 Blatt at 9:30 a.m. Nov. 17. On the agenda: Bills on posting agendas, legislative exemptions to FOIA, enforcement, definitions, income disclosure and PACs.
  
  
• Education. The Early Readiness Assessment Subcommittee of the Education Oversight Committee will meet in Swansea at 10 a.m. Nov. 17. See agenda for more, including address. The Committee’s EIA and Improvement Mechanisms Subcommittee will meet 2 p.m. Nov. 17 in 433 Blatt. More.
  
  
• Transportation. The House Transportation Infrastructure and Management Ad-Hoc Committee will meet 1:30 p.m. Nov. 18 in 521 Blatt. On the agenda: Info from the S.C. Department of Transportation and S.C. Association of Counties.
  
  

Two court decisions that came within hours of each other on Wednesday may change South Carolina significantly.

On Wednesday morning, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but delayed unions until Nov. 20 when a state court stay runs out. More. On Thursday, state Attorney General Alan Wilson filed a motion to get a federal stay to keep South Carolina’s gay marriage ban in place as an appeal is winding its way through the federal system. 

Same-sex marriage supporters and others say he is wasting taxpayer money. More.

Meanwhile on Wednesday came a long-awaited case involving equitable funding in South Carolina schools. The case, Abbeville School District v. State of South Carolina, first was filed in 1993 by poor school districts, many in the “Corridor of Shame. They filed suit to get a fair shake in how they received state money to educate students.

But it took years to travel through the courts ending up in the Supreme Court in June 2008, where it sat and sat. In April 2012, Statehouse Report published a stinging column questioning the delay and few weeks later, the court ordered oral arguments, which occurred in September 2012. Following a bruising race for chief justice this year, the court finally ruled this week -- only to say that the case remains open as the state and school districts figure out a way to address the constitutional violation announced Wednesday. Read the opinion.

As blogger Jon Butzon writes below, how long is that going to take? What is a “reasonable time?” 

(Hint: The answer is not 21 years.)

Until we create some real competition that gives good people a fair shot at being elected to public office in Columbia, we'll remain in the cellar on any number of indicators -- poverty, education, prisoners, health, domestic violence and on and on.

What’s going on now with our election process tramples on the notion of equal representation that the founding fathers envisioned.

In the recent general election of 124 members for the S.C. House of Representatives, some 116 seats -- 94 percent! -- were safe for GOP or Democratic candidates, based on a Statehouse Report analysis. Of the 116 seats, 53 Republican and 30 Democratic incumbents had no challengers. Six other seats had newcomers with no challengers. In the remaining seats, the victors won by a margin of 60 percent or more in all but eight seats.

So with 94 percent of the seats of the S.C. House fairly certain to go to one party or another without much trouble, people outside a seat’s non-favored political party are virtually voiceless in the election process. Furthermore, there's little incentive for the "fat and happy" preferred candidates to campaign hard, delve seriously into issues and really debate anybody who futilely runs. And once these gerrymandered winners are sworn-in as members, why really do anything big when that might get you in trouble with the voters and cause a challenge from your own party?

Why, indeed? South Carolina can't afford a milquetoast legislature like those of recent years. Instead of having state lawmakers who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to make progress, why not start electing folks who want to have real debates on issues and who really want to get something done to craft policies that get us out of the dungeon of states? Wouldn't it be great if we could address poverty through something like an earned income tax credit -- or at least have a healthy debate about it instead of kicking the can down the road? Imagine a legislature that engages to develop a real solution for our $40+ billion in road needs or our outdated, uneven tax code that favors the wealthy. Think about how the legislature could really make education a priority, instead of continuing to make cuts.

That's why the only real solution seems to be one that changes how we vote -- not by fiddling with voter ID rules, but by changing the way districts are drawn.

Every 10 years we have that chance following the U.S. Census when the lines for legislative seats are redrawn. It’s called reapportionment, sometimes known as redistricting. The problem? The very people who are redrawing the lines -- the incumbents -- are doing everything they can to protect their own behinds to keep their districts safe.

Earlier this year, two House Democrats, state Reps. Laurie Funderburk of Camden and Walt McLeod of Little River, proposed an independent reapportionment commission appointed by the legislature and governor. Its job would be to draw balanced, fair districts and submit a plan to the General Assembly to vote up or down. Once a plan is approved, the commission would be disbanded with a new one appointed 10 years later.

The notion of an independent redistricting commission, which at least nine states currently use, is sound.  As a nation, we use such a structure, for example, to take the politics out of closing military bases.

California, which started an independent redistricting commission after the 2010 Census, has found the new process boosts competition and causes fewer incumbents to hold on because there are fewer “safe” seats. While South Carolina may have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to change its process, it is time for state lawmakers to give it a serious look.

Philosophically, Southerners believe in competition.   In football, baseball or basketball, Southerners realize that having good teams to play against causes all teams and players to get better at their games.

Shouldn’t it be the same with elections, the starting point of our democracy?

 Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.  He can be reached at:  brack@statehousereport.com.

• 11/7:  GOP needs to make sweep count
• 10/31: Sheheen's flub highlights media's problem
• 10/24:  State plays shell game with local governments
• MORE BRACK:  See our archives
• FEEDBACK:  feedback@statehousereport.com
  
  

“This case involves the South Carolina Constitution’s requirement that there be a system of free public schools that affords each student the opportunity to receive a minimally-adequate education.

“The trial court found that some children in the plaintiffs’ districts were not being provided their mandated educational opportunity because the defendants [the state] failed to fund early childhood education. The plaintiffs’ districts and the defendants cross-appealed.

“The Court affirms the trial court’s decision as modified, finding that student and school achievement in the plaintiffs’ districts demonstrate that early childhood intervention programs were not the sole problem contributing to the defendant’s constitutional violation. The Court therefore retains jurisdiction of the case and order the parties to reappear before the Court within a reasonable time with plans to address the constitutional violation announced today.”

It’s already taken 21 years to get this far.  Who knows how much longer it will be before something concrete and meaningful happens?

• If you are interested in a timeline of the suit, you may find it here.
  
  
• And if you want to read the Court’s opinion, find it here

Education advocate Jon Butzon of Summerville blogs at JonButzon.com and for the Statehouse Report blog, govt.statehousereport.com.

Gergel. Hats off to U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel for following the U.S. Constitution in overturning the state’s ban on same-sex unions. Being a federal judge, he knows as a historian of figures like Waties Waring, can be a tough, unpopular job.