You are on page 1of 18
2016 Election Analysis: Washington Written and compiled by Bill Baugh, Win/Win ( Asian Pacific Americans

2016 Election Analysis: Washington

Written and compiled by Bill Baugh, Win/Win

Washington Written and compiled by Bill Baugh, Win/Win ( Asian Pacific Americans for Civic Empowerment register

(Asian Pacific Americans for Civic Empowerment register voters in the International District)

Empowerment register voters in the International District) (Win/Win, the Washington Bus, and Washington Student

(Win/Win, the Washington Bus, and Washington Student Association registering voters at the UW)

Washington Student Association registering voters at the UW) (Our Votes Count campaign organizing field volunteers to

(Our Votes Count campaign organizing field volunteers to canvass in Pierce and King County)

2016 Voting Participation 3 Declining Voter Turnout 3 Two Historically Unpopular Candidates for President

2016 Voting Participation

3

Declining Voter Turnout

3

Two Historically Unpopular Candidates for President

3

Turnout by Demographics

4

Record High Participation among People of Color and Youth

4

Record High Voter Registration among People of Color and Youth

5

Asian & Pacific Islander and Latino Voter Registration

6

Dissecting the Election Results

7

Urban/Rural Divide

7

Hillary Clinton Versus Jay Inslee

7

Jay Inslee: 2012 Versus 2016

8

Small, but Very Democratic Cities

10

Looking Ahead - the 15th Legislative District

10

Support, or Lack Thereof, for Trump

13

Lay of the land in the legislature

14

Swing Districts Trending Republican

14

Swing Districts Trending Democratic

14

Candidates Matter

15

Under-performing Districts

15

Over-performing Districts

15

2017 LD Rankings: Cheat Sheet …………………………………………………………………………. 16

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

2016 Voting Participation Declining Voter Turnout Voter turnout has steadily declined since 2008. Turnout in

2016 Voting Participation

Declining Voter Turnout

Voter turnout has steadily declined since 2008. Turnout in presidential-years declined from 85% in 2008, to 81% in 2012, to 79% in 2016. In mid-term elections, turnout declined from 71% in 2010 to 54% in 2014. In the 2015 odd-year election, turnout declined to its lowest point in recent memory at 38%. Voter turnout peaked across the country in 2008 and the steady decrease over time in Washington State is consistent with the rest of the country 1 .

Declining Voter Turnout

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

85% 81% 79% 71% 54% 53% 51% 45% 38% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
85%
81%
79%
71%
54%
53%
51%
45%
38%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Presidential Year
Mid-Term
Odd-Year

Two Historically Unpopular Candidates for President

In addition to the consistent drop in turnout, support for the two major presidential candidates dropped dramatically in 2016. Nearly 12% of the people who cast a ballot in 2016 did not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. This is three times higher than the percentage in 2012 and four times that in 2008. Among the people not voting for Clinton or Trump, 7.6% supported third party candidates and 4.5% skipped voting (or wrote-in a candidate) in the Presidential election.

Support for Major Party Candidates

Major

Candidates

3rd Party

Non-Voters +

Write-in

2008

2012

2016

97.0%

96.0%

88.1%

1.8%

2.5%

7.3%

1.1%

1.5%

4.6%

1 https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/

Turnout by Demographics While turnout is down among all demographics and communities across the state,

Turnout by Demographics

While turnout is down among all demographics and communities across the state, this rate is not consistent between all demographics. The most significant decrease in turnout was among the black community, whose turnout dropped 8 percentage points from 2012 to 2016. A possible explanation of this sharp drop could be that black voters, who supported Barack Obama at 93% in 2012 2 , were less motivated to vote without Obama on the ballot. What we do know is that this creates an opportunity to connect with leaders in the black community to better understand these numbers and see what can be done to close these disparities. In addition, the decline in turnout among youth voters was slightly more pronounced (3.1% drop), while the decline in older voters was slightly less (1.5% drop). The decline in turnout among Asian and Pacific Islander, Latino, and White voters was within the normal 2-3% range and doesn’t show any signs of anything out of the ordinary.

Change in Turnout by Race and Age

 

2012

2016

Turnout

Turnout

Change

Asian or Pacific Islander

69.7%

66.9%

-2.8%

Black

72.6%

64.3%

-8.3%

Hispanic or Latino

64.8%

62.5%

-2.3%

White

82.5%

80.4%

-2.1%

Young Voters (<35)

66.7%

63.6%

-3.1%

Older Voters (>65)

90.9%

89.4%

-1.5%

Record high participation among People of Color and Youth

While there was a fairly consistent decline in turnout across the state, vote share (the percent of all ballots cast) among people of color (POC) and youth (under 35) 3 reached new highs in 2016, especially in the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) and Latino communities. People of color and youth voters accounted for 28.5% of all ballots cast (vote share) in the 2016 general election, the highest rate it’s ever been. 4

The chart below looks at the vote share of POC and youth voters over the past seven years. As expected, their vote share is the highest in high-saliency elections (Presidential elections) and lowest in low- saliency elections (odd-year elections). Though we see a lull from 2013 2015, the spike in 2016 shows

2 http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2012/results/president/exit-polls.html

3 Due to various data challenges, single women was not included in the analysis.

4 Good voter data only goes back to 2010

evidence that POC and youth vote share is back on track. If POC and youth

evidence that POC and youth vote share is back on track. If POC and youth vote share is higher in 2017 than it was in 2015, it would be further evidence that their vote share is trending in the right direction.

Historic Vote Share of POC and Youth Voters

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

27.5% 28.5% 21.3% 18.9% 17.1% 16.1% 16.8% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
27.5%
28.5%
21.3%
18.9%
17.1%
16.1%
16.8%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Record high voter registration among People of Color and youth

The increase in vote share was driven by voter registration, particularly from the API and Latino communities: 71.3% of all new voter registrations in 2016 were from POC and youth registrants, the highest rate it’s been. The chart below looks at all new voter registrations in the state, excluding re- registrations, and shows the percentage of POC and youth registrations among all voter registrations in the state. From 2010 to 2012, this rate was steadily increasing, but dropped significantly in 2013, followed by a steady increase every year since. If this rate continues to increase in 2017, that would be a very promising sign that the some disparities in voting behavior are steadily improving.

POC and Youth % of New Registrations 72% 71.3% 71% 71% 70.5% 70.2% 70.5% 70%
POC and Youth % of New Registrations
72%
71.3%
71%
71%
70.5%
70.2%
70.5%
70%
69.8%
70%
69%
68.9%
69%
68.6%
68%
68%
67%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Asian & Pacific Islander and Latino Voter Registration The most significant increase in the registration

Asian & Pacific Islander and Latino Voter Registration

The most significant increase in the registration rate among POC and youth demographics came from API and Latino communities. Among all new voter registrations last year, API and Latino voters made up 8.1% and 9.2%, respectively. Considering that APIs and Latinos make up 6.4% and 6.6% of all eligible voters, respectively, these high registration rates are an encouraging sign that the voting disparities in these communities are decreasing highlighted in the two charts below. (Win/Win has created separate documents that details the API and Latino voter participation. For more information, please visit winwinnetwork.org/programs/data-and-technology/)

API % of New Registrations

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

8.1% 7.2% 6.8% 6.5% 6.1% 5.7% 5.6% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
8.1%
7.2%
6.8%
6.5%
6.1%
5.7%
5.6%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Latino % of New Registrations

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

9.7% 8.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.5% 7.0% 6.1% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
9.7%
8.8%
7.7%
7.7%
7.5%
7.0%
6.1%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

The chart below shows the breakdown of all new voter registrations in Washington in 2016. Of the 300,000+ new voter registrations last year, over 70% were POC and youth registrants.

2016 New Voter Registrations POC and Youth Voters; 218,895 White Youth; 146,261 Non-NAM; Latino; 88,242
2016 New Voter Registrations
POC and Youth
Voters; 218,895
White Youth;
146,261
Non-NAM;
Latino;
88,242
29,669
API;
Unknown Race;
24,954
7,102
Black; 10,909

Youth voters of color are counted as Latino, API, Black, or Unknown

Dissecting the Election Results Urban/Rural Divide There is a significant correlation in the election results

Dissecting the Election Results

Urban/Rural Divide

There is a significant correlation in the election results that highlight the urban/rural divide in Washington State, with evidence from two separate data points: the difference in support for Hillary Clinton versus Jay Inslee, and the change in support for Jay Inslee from 2012 to 2016. These data points show that wealthy, urban regions in the state tend to support Hillary Clinton at much higher rates than Jay Inslee, while at the same time, supporting Jay Inslee at a much higher rate in 2016 than in 2012. The opposite is true for more rural, lower-income regions of the state: these regions supported Jay Inslee at a much higher rate than Hillary Clinton, while at the same time, supporting Jay Inslee at a lower rate in 2016 than in 2012. While this correlation is strong, we can’t be sure what it means exactly. That said, it is consistent with a national narrative around Clinton’s weakness (and/or Trump’s strength) with rural and lower-income voters. This could also mean that Inslee has more traction in rural communities, or lack of traction in wealthy communities. A combination of all four is also possible.

Hillary Clinton versus Jay Inslee

The difference in support between Hillary Clinton and Jay Inslee (“Clinton/Inslee Difference”) provides anecdotal information about the popularity of the candidates. Statewide, Hillary Clinton and Jay Inslee received nearly the same amount of support: Clinton 54.3% and Inslee 54.4%. However, their support came from different places. Many cities supported Clinton at a higher rate than Inslee (large Clinton/Inslee difference), and many other cities supported Inslee at a higher rate than Clinton (small Clinton/Inslee difference).

The five cities in the state with the largest Clinton/Inslee difference are Hunts Point, Clyde Hill, Medina, Yarrow Point, and Mercer Island, all of which are extremely wealthy cities in the Seattle suburbs. Even though four of those cities are very small in population, the trend is on par with larger cities. The chart below includes cities with at least 5,000 registered voters.

 

Largest Clinton/Inslee Difference

 
 

Median HH

City

County

Income

Clinton %

Inslee %

Difference

Mercer Island

King

$126,106

73%

63%

10%

Sammamish

King

$147,349

66%

57%

9%

Newcastle

King

$111,967

65%

56%

9%

Snoqualmie

King

$124,264

60%

52%

8%

Issaquah

King

$89,776

66%

60%

7%

Bellevue

King

$94,638

68%

62%

7%

Woodinville

King

$99,394

64%

58%

6%

Kirkland

King

$92,127

68%

62%

6%

The opposite is true for cities with the small Clinton/Inslee difference. Lamont, Elmer City, Malden,

The opposite is true for cities with the small Clinton/Inslee difference. Lamont, Elmer City, Malden, and Kahlotus had the lowest Clinton/Inslee support in the state, all of which are small, rural cities with very low median household income rates. Even though all of those cities are very small, the same trend continues for larger cities. The chart below includes cities with at least 5,000 registered voters.

 

Smallest Clinton/Inslee Difference

 
 

Median HH

Clinton

City

County

Income

%

Inslee %

Difference

Kelso

Cowlitz

$33,843

44%

51%

-7%

Spokane Valley

Spokane

$47,430

37%

43%

-7%

Moses Lake

Grant

$48,174

31%

37%

-6%

Aberdeen

Grays Harbor

$40,958

47%

53%

-6%

Kennewick

Benton

$51,661

33%

39%

-6%

Port Angeles

Clallam

$40,523

49%

55%

-5%

Oak Harbor

Island

$46,621

39%

44%

-5%

Centralia

Lewis

$37,100

37%

42%

-5%

Jay Inslee: 2012 versus 2016

In addition to the Clinton/Inslee difference, change in Jay Inslee’s support from 2012 to 2016 also shows waning Democratic support in rural areas of the state, and increasing support in urban areas. Statewide, Jay Inslee received 51.5% support in 2012 against strong Republican candidate Rob McKenna. In 2016, Inslee faced a weaker opponent, Bill Bryant, and received 54.4% of the vote, an improvement of nearly 3%, which is not consistent across the state. Looking at these results at the legislative district (LD) level shows further evidence of an urban/rural divide that goes beyond the Trump effect.

Though Inslee’s support increased by 3% across the state, there were six LDs in the state where Inslee actually lost support from 2012. The chart below looks at these LDs, all of which are in Western Washington, and three of which voted for Inslee in 2012. This isn’t an anomaly seen only in Republican, Eastern Washington districts; four of these districts are in rural parts of Western Washington and two districts - 29 and 38 - are both in in urban, lower income areas in Tacoma and Everett, respectively.

  LDs with Lowest Inslee Gains     M e d i a n H
 

LDs with Lowest Inslee Gains

 
 

Median HH

Inslee

Inslee

LD

Region

Income

2012

2016

Change

20

Rural Southwest WA

$53,076

39%

35%

-4%

19

Rural Southwest WA

$45,081

50%

46%

-4%

39

Rural Northwest WA

$69,158

45%

42%

-3%

2

Rural Pierce County

$65,270

43%

41%

-2%

38

Everett

$54,365

55%

54%

-1%

29

Tacoma

$47,933

57%

57%

0%

Compare the chart above with the chart below, which highlights the districts where Jay Inslee’s performance improved the most since 2012. These districts show signs of becoming more Democratic, and with the exception of the 40 th LD, all districts are urban districts in King County.

 

LDs with Largest Inslee Gains

 
 

Median HH

Inslee

Inslee

LD

Region

Income

2012

2016

Change

41

Eastside King County

$114,045

49%

60%

10%

48

Eastside King County

$100,310

53%

62%

9%

45

Eastside King County

$118,433

50%

58%

8%

46

Seattle

$84,046

72%

78%

6%

40

Northwest WA

$54,682

59%

63%

5%

34

Seattle

$70,277

71%

76%

5%

5

Eastside King County

$101,895

45%

50%

4%

The correlation in the two charts above echoes the sentiment of the “Clinton/Inslee difference” referenced earlier. Rural and lower-income districts are becoming more Republican, while urban wealthy districts are becoming more Democratic.

Small, but very Democratic Cities While it’s well known that cities like Seattle, Bainbridge Island,

Small, but very Democratic Cities

While it’s well known that cities like Seattle, Bainbridge Island, and Bellingham are liberal hot-spots in the state, there are other, smaller Democratic cities (under 5,000 people) that go largely unnoticed due to their small size. Among the top 12 cities where Jay Inslee received his largest support, only one city is in King County (Seattle) and seven are in central Washington, including four in Yakima County alone.

Cities with Highest Inslee Percentage

City

County

Clinton

Inslee

Nespelem

Okanogan

88%

94%

Langley

Island

80%

84%

Wapato

Yakima

81%

84%

Mattawa

Grant

85%

83%

Seattle

King

86%

83%

Mabton

Yakima

83%

82%

Port Townsend

Jefferson

77%

82%

Elmer City

Okanogan

55%

77%

Bainbridge Island

Kitsap

79%

77%

Toppenish

Yakima

75%

75%

Bellingham

Whatcom

72%

74%

Granger

Yakima

70%

74%

Looking Ahead - the 15th Legislative District

Though these Central Washington cities may seem insignificant on their own, when consolidated into one single legislative district, there is potential for Democratic candidates to be more successful. During the 2010 redistricting efforts, Win/Win Network partners advocated that the 15 th legislative district should consolidate regions in Yakima County that have high concentration of people of color (largely Latino), including the eastern portion of the city of Yakima. If the eastern portion of the city of Yakima were combined with the rest of southern Yakima County, the district would be over 74% people of color, allowing for a higher probability of electing someone who truly represents that majority.

However, instead of consolidating these communities, the last redistricting process split the Latino community between the 14 th and 15 th legislative districts, continuing to dilute the influence and power of communities of color in Central Washington. The maps below compare the district that Win/Win partners advocated for, and the final district approved by the redistricting commission. The egregious gerrymandering of the Latino community into two separate districts in Yakima County should be addressed in the upcoming 2020 redistricting process.

15th LD Performance: Proposed vs Actual

 

POC %

Clinton%

Inslee %

Proposed 15th LD Actual 15th LD

74%

53%

57%

60%

43%

47%

2010 Proposed 15 t h District Below is a picture of Yakima County that shows

2010 Proposed 15 th District

Below is a picture of Yakima County that shows where communities of color (largely Latino) live in the county. The proposed legislative district that Win/Win partners proposed is outlined in pink and follows the general pattern of the original district before the 2010 redistricting process.

the original district before the 2010 redistricting process. Below, you see the city of Yakima zoomed
the original district before the 2010 redistricting process. Below, you see the city of Yakima zoomed

Below, you see the city of Yakima zoomed in, showing how segregated the Latino community is from the white population in the city. Win/Win partners proposed consolidating the largely Latino community in east Yakima city with the largely Latino community in the southern portion of the county.

Latino community in the southern portion of the county. 1402 Third Ave., Suite 201 Seattle, WA
2010 Approved 15 t h District Below is a picture of Yakima County that shows

2010 Approved 15 th District

Below is a picture of Yakima County that shows where communities of color (largely Latino) live in the county. The current boundary of the 15 th LD is outlined in pink, showing how communities of color were gerrymandered into two separate districts. The new boundaries of the 15 th legislative district are dramatically different from the previous district boundaries.

different from the previous district boundaries. The city of Yakima is zoomed in on the map

The city of Yakima is zoomed in on the map below, again, showing how communities of color were gerrymandered into two separate districts.

of color were gerrymandered into two separate districts. 1402 Third Ave., Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98101
Support, or lack thereof, for Trump While the city of Mattawa in Grant County showed

Support, or lack thereof, for Trump

While the city of Mattawa in Grant County showed the least support for Trump, only 13 of the 167 voters (7.8%) in the city voted for Trump, the chart below ranks the cities with at least 5,0000 registered voters in the state. It’s not surprising that eleven of the top twelve cities are in Western Washington, six of which are in King County, and three are major college towns (Seattle, Bellingham, and Pullman).

Cities with Lowest Trump Support

 

City

County

Clinton

Trump

3rd Party

Inslee

Seattle Port Townsend Bainbridge Island Lake Forrest Park Shoreline Bellingham Olympia Tukwila Redmond Mercer Island Mountlake Terrace Pullman

King

86%

9%

5%

83%

Jefferson

77%

15%

8%

82%

Kitsap

79%

15%

6%

77%

King

77%

17%

6%

72%

King

75%

19%

6%

72%

Whatcom

72%

19%

8%

74%

Thurston

69%

21%

9%

72%

King

73%

21%

6%

73%

King

71%

22%

7%

66%

King

73%

22%

5%

63%

Snohomish

68%

23%

8%

66%

Whitman

65%

23%

11%

65%

Conversely, the chart below looks at cities in the state with at least 5,000 registered voters that had the highest support for Trump.

 

Cities with Largest Trump Support

 

City

County

Clinton

Trump

3rd Party

Inslee

Lynden

Whatcom

25%

69%

7%

25%

West Richland

Benton

29%

61%

10%

33%

Moses Lake

Grant

31%

61%

9%

37%

Kennewick

Benton

33%

59%

8%

39%

East Wenatchee

Douglas

34%

59%

7%

38%

Battle Ground

Clark

34%

59%

8%

36%

Liberty Lake

Spokane

36%

56%

8%

38%

Centralia

Lewis

37%

55%

9%

42%

Spokane Valley

Spokane

37%

54%

9%

43%

College Place

Walla Walla

36%

53%

11%

39%

Richland

Benton

38%

53%

9%

42%

Bonney Lake

Pierce

39%

52%

9%

41%

LAY OF THE LAND IN THE LEGISLATURE With the growing urban/rural divide in Washington State,

LAY OF THE LAND IN THE LEGISLATURE

With the growing urban/rural divide in Washington State, it’s important to follow the trends and re- adjust the assumptions around Democratic support in any given district. Looking at all races in any given district over time can help us better understand which districts are becoming more Democratic and which districts are trending Republican. As data in the earlier section suggests, some legislative districts are becoming more Republican, and some are becoming more Democratic. When only looking at “swing” districts in the state, a few LDs stand out.

Swing Districts Trending Republican

The following “swing” districts are becoming more Republican: 19, 25, and 35. The most significant decline in Democratic support is occurring in the 19 th despite a longstanding trend in electing a large number of Democrats to the state legislature. This decline in the 19 th district is very significant and it should now be considered a lean-Republican district. With that said, moderate Democratic legislators in that district, Dean Takko and Brian Blake, have consistently won re-election by wide margins and appear to be fairly safe.

The chart below looks at these trending-republican districts and compares their performance in the past two races for Governor and President. Statewide, Jay Inslee improved on his 2012 performance by 3% and Hillary Clinton underperformed Obama’s 2012 performance by 2%. When comparing those rates (listed under “change”), the waning Democratic support in those districts becomes clearer, especially in LD 19.

Waning Support in Key Districts

 
 

Jay Inslee Change

Obama/Clinton Change

 

Obama

 

2012

2016

Change

2012

Clinton

Change

19

50%

46%

-4%

54%

42%

-12%

25

45%

46%

1%

51%

45%

-6%

35

46%

47%

0%

51%

44%

-7%

Statewide

52%

54%

3%

56%

54%

-2%

Swing Districts Trending Democratic

On the other end of the spectrum, the following swing districts are becoming more Democratic: LD 41, 45, and to a lesser degree, 5. These districts, all located on the east side of King County, are supporting Democratic candidates at a higher rate now, than four years ago, when compared to the state average.

  Gaining Support in Key Districts     Jay Inslee Change Obama/Clinton Change Obama 2012
 

Gaining Support in Key Districts

 
 

Jay Inslee Change

Obama/Clinton Change Obama

2012

Clinton

Change

 

2012

2016

Change

5

45%

50%

4%

53%

55%

1%

41

49%

60%

10%

60%

68%

8%

45

50%

58%

8%

58%

65%

7%

State Average

52%

54%

3%

56%

54%

-2%

Candidates matter

If one were to only look at the number of Democrats elected to the state legislature as a measure of how Democratic a district is, it would tell a misleading story. Voters are very capable of voting for both Democratic and Republican candidates on the same ballot. A prime example of this ticket splittingcan be seen in the LD 47 in 2014, when the voters overwhelming elected Republican Joe Fain at 63%, while in the same election, overwhelmingly electing Democrat Pat Sullivan by nearly 56%. In addition, there are eight LDs in the state that currently have both a Republican and Democrat representatives: 5, 19, 28, 30, 35, 44, 45, and 47. When comparing the number of Democrats elected to the state legislature with the support for statewide/federal candidates, five outlying districts emerge.

Under-performing Districts

Three districts in the state seem to be under-performing in electing Democrats to the state legislature:

10, 30, and 42. Despite voting for every Democratic candidate for Governor, US House, US Senate, and President since 2008 by at least 52% of the vote, on the legislative level, LD 30 has elected only six Democrats (counting Mark Miloscia as a Democrat in 2010) and five Republicans since 2010. On the other end of the scale, LD 10 and 42 have supported statewide Democratic candidates with 47% and 48% respectively, results that put them in a lean-Republican category. However, neither district has seen a Democrat elected to the legislature while ten Republicans have served since 2010. Districts 10, 30, and 42 are more Democratic than they appear on the surface, they’ve just been under-performing, potentially because of strong Republican candidates and/or weak Democratic candidates.

Over-performing Districts

There are two LDs in the state that seem to be over-performing in electing Democrats to the state legislature: 19 and 24. Despite supporting statewide candidates at a relatively modest rate, 46% and 51%, respectively, districts 19 and 24 have overwhelming elected Democrats to the state legislature. Since 2010, the 19 th LD has elected nine Democrats and one Republican, and the 24 th LD has elected 10 Democrats and no Republicans. These districts are more Republican than they appear on the surface,

they’ve jus t been over-performing, possible because of very strong Democratic candidates and/or weak Republican

they’ve just been over-performing, possible because of very strong Democratic candidates and/or weak Republican candidates.

The chart below looks at all “swing” districts in the state, sorted by average support for Democratic candidates in the 2012 and 2016 Governor and 2016 Presidential races. The districts that seem to be under-performing are highlighted in red and over-performing districts are highlighted in blue.

Statewide Candidates vs Legislative Candidates

LD

Average Statewide Support for Democratic Candidates

Democrats Elected to State Legislature

Republicans Elected to State Legislature

41

59%

9

2

45

57%

8

2

30

55%

6*

5

47

52%

4

6

24

51%

10

0

28

51%

5

6

5

50%

2

8

44

49%

6

4

42

48%

0

10

10

47%

0

10

17

46%

2

8

19

46%

9

1

35

46%

5*

5

25

45%

1

9

26

45%

3

8

*Mark Miloscia (2010) and Tim Sheldon (2010, 2014) are counted as Democrats despite caucusing with Republicans

2017 LD Rankings: Cheat Sheet

The rankings below should serve as a general guideline for evaluating how Democratic any given legislative district is in the state. These rankings oversimplify the real lay of the land, and is meant to give an approximate estimate of how a generic Democratic candidate would fare against a generic Republican candidate. Additional context should always be considered before evaluating any given race. As stated earlier, candidates matter. A great Republican candidate can win in Democratic districts, and vice versa.

  Safe Democratic LDs     Average Democrats Elected to State Legislature Since 2010 Republicans
 

Safe Democratic LDs

 
 

Average

Democrats Elected to State Legislature Since 2010

Republicans Elected to State Legislature Since 2010

LD

Democratic

Strength Within Group (Sub-Category)

Support

43

86%

1: Strong

10

0

37

85%

1: Strong

10

0

36

81%

1: Strong

11

0

46

77%

1: Strong

11

0

34

75%

1: Strong

10

0

32

68%

1: Strong

10

0

11

64%

1: Strong

10

0

27

63%

1: Strong

10

0

33

63%

1: Strong

10

0

40

62%

1: Strong

10

0

48

61%

1: Strong

10

0

22

60%

1: Strong

10

0

21

59%

2: Medium

10

0

1

57%

2: Medium

10

0

29

56%

2: Medium

10

0

23

56%

2: Medium

10

0

49

56%

2: Medium

11

0

3

55%

2: Medium

10

0

38

54%

3: Weak

10

0

 

Swing LDs

 

Average

Democrats Elected to State Legislature Since 2010

Republicans Elected to State Legislature Since 2010

LD

Democratic

Strength Within Group (Sub-Category)

Support

41

59%

1: Lean Democrat

9

2

45

57%

1: Lean Democrat

8

2

30

55%

1: Lean Democrat

6*

5

24

51%

1: Lean Democrat

10

0

47

52%

2: Pure Swing

4

6

28

51%

2: Pure Swing

5

6

44

49%

2: Pure Swing

6

4

5

50%

3: Lean Republican

2

8

42

48%

3: Lean Republican

0

10

10

47%

3: Lean Republican

0

10

17

46%

3: Lean Republican

2

8

19

46%

3: Lean Republican

9

1

35

46%

3: Lean Republican

5*

5

25

45%

3: Lean Republican

1

9

26

45%

3: Lean Republican

3

8

*Mark Miloscia (2010) and Tim Sheldon (2010, 2014) are counted as Democrats despite caucusing with Republicans

  Safe Republican LDs     Average Democrats Elected to State Legislature Since 2010 Republicans
 

Safe Republican LDs

 
 

Average

Democrats Elected to State Legislature Since 2010

Republicans Elected to State Legislature Since 2010

LD

Democratic

Strength Within Group (Sub-Category)

Support

6

45%

1: Weak

0

10

15

45%

1: Weak

0

10

18

42%

2: Medium

0

10

39

42%

2: Medium

0

10

31

42%

2: Medium

3

7

14

41%

2: Medium

0

10

2

41%

2: Medium

0

10

16

38%

3: Strong

0

10

12

38%

3: Strong

0

10

4

38%

3: Strong

0

11

9

37%

3: Strong

0

11

8

36%

3: Strong

0

11

20

35%

3: Strong

0

10

13

33%

3: Strong

0

10

7

33%

3: Strong

0

11

Conclusion

There is hope coming out of the 2016 election if we can build on the record high voter participation rates and positive trends coming from Latino and Asian Pacific Islander communities and within areas outside of King County. We believe that the work of Win/Win's partner organizations are doing on the ground and in community is having an impact in addressing the ongoing disparities we see in underrepresented communities. As we look ahead, a continued focus on organizing and mobilizing among these communities will be key to creating a representative democracy in Washington. Additionally, exploring opportunities for coordinated action, candidate development, and community engagement in the small but very democratic cities could provide key opportunities in changing the electoral map over the long-term.