Difference between revisions of "Incumbents with no primary challenger in the 2010 state legislative elections"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(States compared by primary competition: spelled percentage)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
'''By Geoff Pallay and Leslie Graves'''
 
'''By Geoff Pallay and Leslie Graves'''
  
There are [[state legislative elections, 2010|6,125 state legislative districts with a seat up for election]] on November 2, 2010, in 46 states. We took a look at each of the 46 states to see how many state legislative incumbents who chose to run for re-election in 2010 '''faced a primary challenger.'''   
+
There were [[state legislative elections, 2010|6,125 state legislative districts]], in 46 states, with a seat up for election on November 2, 2010. We took a look at each of the 46 states to see how many state legislative incumbents who chose to run for re-election in 2010 '''faced a primary challenger.'''   
  
 
Our main findings:
 
Our main findings:
  
 
* The incumbent chose to run for re-election in 4,985 (81.4%) of the 6,125 districts holding state legislative elections in 2010.
 
* The incumbent chose to run for re-election in 4,985 (81.4%) of the 6,125 districts holding state legislative elections in 2010.
* In 3,861 (77.31%) of those 4,985 districts, the incumbent faced no challenger in the primary.  
+
* In 3,852 (77.3%) of those 4,985 districts, the incumbent faced no challenger in the primary.
 +
* Thus, only '''1,133 (22.7%)''' of incumbents faced a primary opponent.
 +
* Of those 1,133 incumbents who faced a primary, only 96 were defeated.
  
 
Comparing states:
 
Comparing states:
 
[[File:Primary Challengers Map.png|right|370px]]
 
[[File:Primary Challengers Map.png|right|370px]]
* '''North Dakota, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine and Minnesota''' have the fewest incumbents facing primary opposition -- in other words, these five states had the '''least amount of competitiveness''' at the primary level.   
+
* '''North Dakota, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine and Minnesota''' had the fewest incumbents facing primary opposition -- in other words, these five states had the '''least amount of competitiveness''' at the primary level.   
 
* The five states with the '''most competitive primaries''' in terms of incumbents facing primary challengers are '''New Hampshire, Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia and Arizona.'''
 
* The five states with the '''most competitive primaries''' in terms of incumbents facing primary challengers are '''New Hampshire, Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia and Arizona.'''
  
The score that states received based on their ratio of incumbents facing a primary challenger is [[2010 state legislative elections analyzed using a Competitiveness Index|one of 3 factors used in evaluating]] which states have the highest, and which states have the lowest, [[A "Competitiveness Index" for capturing competitiveness in state legislative elections|overall competitiveness]] in the [[state legislative elections, 2010|2010 state legislative elections]].
+
The score that states received based on their ratio of incumbents facing a primary challenger was [[2010 state legislative elections analyzed using a Competitiveness Index|one of 3 factors used in evaluating]] which states had the highest, and which states had the lowest, [[A "Competitiveness Index" for capturing competitiveness in state legislative elections|overall competitiveness]] in the [[state legislative elections, 2010|2010 state legislative elections]].
 +
 
 +
Additionally, we tracked [[Incumbents with no primary or general election challengers in the 2010 state legislative elections|incumbents that face no primary or general election opposition]] in the 2010 election. This data was not a primary component of the [[A "Competitiveness Index" for capturing competitiveness in state legislative elections|competitiveness index]] but was still compelling information regarding the elections.
 +
 
 +
There are '''1,295 total incumbents (26.12%)''' who were guaranteed to win the race from the moment they registered for re-election -- because no opponent filed to run in the primary or general election.
  
 
==States compared by primary competition==
 
==States compared by primary competition==
<div style="float:left; margin-top: 0.0em; margin-bottom:3px; background-color: #transparent; padding: .2em .6em; font-size: 100%; border:1px solid #A3B1BF;">'''Legend:''' {{legend|#FFBF00|[[Impact of term limits on state legislative elections in 2010|States with state legislative term limits]]}}
+
<div style="float:left; margin-top: 0.0em; margin-bottom:3px; padding: .2em .6em; font-size: 100%; border:1px solid #A3B1BF;">'''Legend:''' {{legend|#FFBF00|[[Impact of term limits on state legislative elections in 2010|States with state legislative term limits]]}}
  
 
<span style="font-size: larger;font-weight: bold;"></span></div><br><br><br>
 
<span style="font-size: larger;font-weight: bold;"></span></div><br><br><br>
The state that is least competitive as defined by the percentage of its seats where the incumbent did not have a primary challenger in 2010 is defined as #46, while the state that is most competitive as defined by the percentage of its seats where the incumbent did have a primary challenger is defined as #1; that is, '''1 = "most competitive"''', '''46 = "least competitive"'''.  
+
The state that was least competitive as defined by the percentage of its seats where the incumbent did not have a primary challenger in 2010 is defined as #46, while the state that was most competitive as defined by the percentage of its seats where the incumbent did have a primary challenger is defined as #1; that is, '''1 = "most competitive"''', '''46 = "least competitive"'''.  
  
 
{|class="wikitable sortable" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" border="1" style="background:none" style="width:80%;"
 
{|class="wikitable sortable" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" border="1" style="background:none" style="width:80%;"
Line 30: Line 36:
 
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Incumbents w/o primary
 
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Incumbents w/o primary
 
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | % w/o primary
 
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | % w/o primary
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Rank
+
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Primary challenger rank
 +
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Overall competitive rank
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 40: Line 47:
 
| align="center" | 71.7%
 
| align="center" | 71.7%
 
| align="center" | 9
 
| align="center" | 9
 +
| align="center" | 22
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 49: Line 57:
 
| align="center" | 82.2%
 
| align="center" | 82.2%
 
| align="center" | 23
 
| align="center" | 23
 +
| align="center" | 31
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 58: Line 67:
 
| align="center" | 50%
 
| align="center" | 50%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 5
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 5
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 3
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 67: Line 77:
 
| align="center" | 93.75%
 
| align="center" | 93.75%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 41
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 41
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 33
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 76: Line 87:
 
| align="center" | 90.32%
 
| align="center" | 90.32%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 37
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 37
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 11
  
 
|-
 
|-
| style="background-color:#FFBF00" |[[Colorado State Legislature|Colorado]]
+
| style="background-color:#FFBF00" |[[Colorado General Assembly|Colorado]]
 
| align="center" | [[Colorado State Senate elections, 2010|19]]  
 
| align="center" | [[Colorado State Senate elections, 2010|19]]  
 
| align="center" | [[Colorado State Senate elections, 2010#List of candidates|12]]
 
| align="center" | [[Colorado State Senate elections, 2010#List of candidates|12]]
Line 85: Line 97:
 
| align="center" | 98.44%
 
| align="center" | 98.44%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 45
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 45
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 21
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 94: Line 107:
 
| align="center" | 97.62%
 
| align="center" | 97.62%
 
| align="center" | 44
 
| align="center" | 44
 +
| align="center" | 36
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 103: Line 117:
 
| align="center" | 89.36%
 
| align="center" | 89.36%
 
| align="center" | 35
 
| align="center" | 35
 +
| align="center" | 44
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 112: Line 127:
 
| align="center" | 80.41%
 
| align="center" | 80.41%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 19
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 19
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 17
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 121: Line 137:
 
| align="center" | 79.29%
 
| align="center" | 79.29%
 
| align="center" | 16
 
| align="center" | 16
 +
| align="center" | 28
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 129: Line 146:
 
| align="center" | [[Hawaii House of Representatives elections, 2010#List of candidates|28]]
 
| align="center" | [[Hawaii House of Representatives elections, 2010#List of candidates|28]]
 
| align="center" | 59.65%
 
| align="center" | 59.65%
 +
| align="center" | 6
 
| align="center" | 6
 
| align="center" | 6
  
Line 139: Line 157:
 
| align="center" | 72.92%
 
| align="center" | 72.92%
 
| align="center" | 10
 
| align="center" | 10
 +
| align="center" | 30
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 148: Line 167:
 
| align="center" | 82.81%
 
| align="center" | 82.81%
 
| align="center" | 25
 
| align="center" | 25
 +
| align="center" | 39
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 157: Line 177:
 
| align="center" | 83.48%
 
| align="center" | 83.48%
 
| align="center" | 26
 
| align="center" | 26
 +
| align="center" | 37
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 166: Line 187:
 
| align="center" | 92.59%
 
| align="center" | 92.59%
 
| align="center" | 39
 
| align="center" | 39
 +
| align="center" | 29
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 175: Line 197:
 
| align="center" | 80%
 
| align="center" | 80%
 
| align="center" | 18
 
| align="center" | 18
 +
| align="center" | 34
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 184: Line 207:
 
| align="center" | 81.25%
 
| align="center" | 81.25%
 
| align="center" | 21
 
| align="center" | 21
 +
| align="center" | 43
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 193: Line 217:
 
| align="center" | 97.18%
 
| align="center" | 97.18%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 43
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 43
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 14
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 202: Line 227:
 
| align="center" | 33.13%
 
| align="center" | 33.13%
 
| align="center" | 2
 
| align="center" | 2
 +
| align="center" | 5
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 211: Line 237:
 
| align="center" | 91.67%
 
| align="center" | 91.67%
 
| align="center" | 38
 
| align="center" | 38
 +
| align="center" | 40
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 220: Line 247:
 
| align="center" | 76.47%
 
| align="center" | 76.47%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 13
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 13
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 2
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 229: Line 257:
 
| align="center" | 94.92%
 
| align="center" | 94.92%
 
| align="center" | 42
 
| align="center" | 42
 +
| align="center" | 24
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 238: Line 267:
 
| align="center" | 85.05%
 
| align="center" | 85.05%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 28
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 28
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 20
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 247: Line 277:
 
| align="center" | 85.53%
 
| align="center" | 85.53%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 30
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 30
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00"| 12
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 256: Line 287:
 
| align="center" | 38.1%
 
| align="center" | 38.1%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 3
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 3
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 7
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 265: Line 297:
 
| align="center" | 80.77%
 
| align="center" | 80.77%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 20
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 20
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 4
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 273: Line 306:
 
| align="center" | [[New Hampshire House of Representatives elections, 2010#List of candidates|65]]
 
| align="center" | [[New Hampshire House of Representatives elections, 2010#List of candidates|65]]
 
| align="center" | 25.78%
 
| align="center" | 25.78%
 +
| align="center" | 1
 
| align="center" | 1
 
| align="center" | 1
  
Line 283: Line 317:
 
| align="center" | 79.1%
 
| align="center" | 79.1%
 
| align="center" | 15
 
| align="center" | 15
 +
| align="center" | 42
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 292: Line 327:
 
| align="center" | 79.68%
 
| align="center" | 79.68%
 
| align="center" | 17
 
| align="center" | 17
 +
| align="center" | 13
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 301: Line 337:
 
| align="center" | 74.34%
 
| align="center" | 74.34%
 
| align="center" | 11
 
| align="center" | 11
 +
| align="center" | 19
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 310: Line 347:
 
| align="center" | 100%
 
| align="center" | 100%
 
| align="center" | 46
 
| align="center" | 46
 +
| align="center" | 25
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 319: Line 357:
 
| align="center" | 84.71%
 
| align="center" | 84.71%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 27
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 27
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 8
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 328: Line 367:
 
| align="center" | 85.44%
 
| align="center" | 85.44%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 29
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 29
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 32
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 337: Line 377:
 
| align="center" | 86.96%
 
| align="center" | 86.96%
 
| align="center" | 32
 
| align="center" | 32
 +
| align="center" | 27
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 346: Line 387:
 
| align="center" | 85.51%
 
| align="center" | 85.51%
 
| align="center" | 31
 
| align="center" | 31
 +
| align="center" | 38
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 355: Line 397:
 
| align="center" | 61%
 
| align="center" | 61%
 
| align="center" | 7
 
| align="center" | 7
 +
| align="center" | 15
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 364: Line 407:
 
| align="center" | 76.99%
 
| align="center" | 76.99%
 
| align="center" | 14
 
| align="center" | 14
 +
| align="center" | 41
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 373: Line 417:
 
| align="center" | 90.14%
 
| align="center" | 90.14%
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 36
 
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 36
 +
| align="center" style="background-color:#FFBF00" | 18
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 382: Line 427:
 
| align="center" | 87.74%
 
| align="center" | 87.74%
 
| align="center" | 34
 
| align="center" | 34
 +
| align="center" | 45
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 391: Line 437:
 
| align="center" | 81.65%
 
| align="center" | 81.65%
 
| align="center" | 22
 
| align="center" | 22
 +
| align="center" | 46
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 400: Line 447:
 
| align="center" | 70%
 
| align="center" | 70%
 
| align="center" | 8
 
| align="center" | 8
 +
| align="center" | 10
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 409: Line 457:
 
| align="center" | 93.04%
 
| align="center" | 93.04%
 
| align="center" | 40
 
| align="center" | 40
 +
| align="center" | 35
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 418: Line 467:
 
| align="center" | 87.13%
 
| align="center" | 87.13%
 
| align="center" | 33
 
| align="center" | 33
 +
| align="center" | 26
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 427: Line 477:
 
| align="center" | 44.66%
 
| align="center" | 44.66%
 
| align="center" | 4
 
| align="center" | 4
 +
| align="center" | 9
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 436: Line 487:
 
| align="center" | 82.8%
 
| align="center" | 82.8%
 
| align="center" | 24
 
| align="center" | 24
 +
| align="center" | 16
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 445: Line 497:
 
| align="center" | 75%
 
| align="center" | 75%
 
| align="center" | 12
 
| align="center" | 12
 +
| align="center" | 23
 
|-class="sortbottom"
 
|-class="sortbottom"
| style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | '''Totals:''' || text align="center" | '''1,167''' || align="center" | '''708''' || align="center" | '''4,958''' || align="center" | '''3,153''' || align="center" | '''77.31%''' || align="center" | '''NA'''  
+
| style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | '''Totals:''' || text align="center" | '''1,167''' || align="center" | '''708''' || align="center" | '''4,958''' || align="center" | '''3,153''' || align="center" | '''77.31%''' || align="center" | '''NA''' || align="center" | NA
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 454: Line 507:
 
* [[State legislative elections, 2010]]
 
* [[State legislative elections, 2010]]
 
* [[Impact of term limits on state legislative elections in 2010]]
 
* [[Impact of term limits on state legislative elections in 2010]]
* [[Ballotpedia:Competitiveness analysis and partisan impact]]
+
* [[Partisan balance of legislatures and 2010 competitiveness]]
 
* [[Major party candidates with no major party challengers in the November 2010 state legislative elections]]
 
* [[Major party candidates with no major party challengers in the November 2010 state legislative elections]]
 
* [[Open seats in the 2010 state legislative elections]]
 
* [[Open seats in the 2010 state legislative elections]]
 +
* [[Incumbents with no primary or general election challengers in the 2010 state legislative elections]]
  
 
{{state legislatures}}
 
{{state legislatures}}
 
{{ballotpedia}}
 
{{ballotpedia}}
[[Category:Competitiveness analysis of state legislative elections]]
+
[[Category:Competitiveness analysis of state legislative elections, 2010]]
 +
[[Category:Competitiveness analysis of state legislative elections, 2010, report in detail]]

Latest revision as of 11:11, 27 June 2013

2010 Competitiveness Overview
Competitiveness logo 4.jpg
Primary competition (state comparison)
Incumbents with no primary challenge in 2010
Incumbents with no challenges at all in 2010
Incumbents defeatedVictorious challengers
Major party challengers (state comparison)
List of candidates with no competition
Open seats (state comparisons)
Impact of term limits on # of open seats
Long-serving senatorsLong-serving reps
Star bookmark.png   Results Comparisons  Star bookmark.png
Chart Comparing 2011 ResultsComparisons Between Years
Party differences
Competitiveness Index
2010 State Legislative Elections
Competitiveness Studies from Other Years
2007200920112012

By Geoff Pallay and Leslie Graves

There were 6,125 state legislative districts, in 46 states, with a seat up for election on November 2, 2010. We took a look at each of the 46 states to see how many state legislative incumbents who chose to run for re-election in 2010 faced a primary challenger.

Our main findings:

  • The incumbent chose to run for re-election in 4,985 (81.4%) of the 6,125 districts holding state legislative elections in 2010.
  • In 3,852 (77.3%) of those 4,985 districts, the incumbent faced no challenger in the primary.
  • Thus, only 1,133 (22.7%) of incumbents faced a primary opponent.
  • Of those 1,133 incumbents who faced a primary, only 96 were defeated.

Comparing states:

Primary Challengers Map.png
  • North Dakota, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine and Minnesota had the fewest incumbents facing primary opposition -- in other words, these five states had the least amount of competitiveness at the primary level.
  • The five states with the most competitive primaries in terms of incumbents facing primary challengers are New Hampshire, Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia and Arizona.

The score that states received based on their ratio of incumbents facing a primary challenger was one of 3 factors used in evaluating which states had the highest, and which states had the lowest, overall competitiveness in the 2010 state legislative elections.

Additionally, we tracked incumbents that face no primary or general election opposition in the 2010 election. This data was not a primary component of the competitiveness index but was still compelling information regarding the elections.

There are 1,295 total incumbents (26.12%) who were guaranteed to win the race from the moment they registered for re-election -- because no opponent filed to run in the primary or general election.

States compared by primary competition

Legend:      States with state legislative term limits



The state that was least competitive as defined by the percentage of its seats where the incumbent did not have a primary challenger in 2010 is defined as #46, while the state that was most competitive as defined by the percentage of its seats where the incumbent did have a primary challenger is defined as #1; that is, 1 = "most competitive", 46 = "least competitive".

State Senate at stake Incumbents w/o primary House at stake Incumbents w/o primary  % w/o primary Primary challenger rank Overall competitive rank
Alabama 35 22 105 64 71.7% 9 22
Alaska 10 9 40 28 82.2% 23 31
Arizona 30 10 60 15 50% 5 3
Arkansas 17 3 100 57 93.75% 41 33
California 20 10 80 46 90.32% 37 11
Colorado 19 12 65 51 98.44% 45 21
Connecticut 36 32 151 132 97.62% 44 36
Delaware 11 9 41 33 89.36% 35 44
Florida 23 8 120 70 80.41% 19 17
Georgia 56 34 180 123 79.29% 16 28
Hawaii 13 6 51 28 59.65% 6 6
Idaho 35 21 70 49 72.92% 10 30
Illinois 21 17 118 89 82.81% 25 39
Indiana 25 19 100 77 83.48% 26 37
Iowa 25 21 100 79 92.59% 39 29
Kansas NA NA 125 92 80% 18 34
Kentucky 19 11 100 80 81.25% 21 43
Maine 35 25 151 113 97.18% 43 14
Maryland 47 24 141 30 33.13% 2 5
Massachusetts 40 28 160 126 91.67% 38 40
Michigan 38 6 110 46 76.47% 13 2
Minnesota 67 52 134 116 94.92% 42 24
Missouri 17 4 163 87 85.05% 28 20
Montana 26 9 100 56 85.53% 30 12
Nebraska 24 8 NA NA 38.1% 3 7
Nevada 11 2 42 19 80.77% 20 4
New Hampshire 24 18 400 65 25.78% 1 1
New Mexico NA NA 70 53 79.1% 15 42
New York 62 44 150 105 79.68% 17 13
North Carolina 50 31 120 82 74.34% 11 19
North Dakota 24 20 48 35 100% 46 25
Ohio 17 7 99 65 84.71% 27 8
Oklahoma 24 12 101 76 85.44% 29 32
Oregon 16 12 60 48 86.96% 32 27
Pennsylvania 25 20 203 157 85.51% 31 38
Rhode Island 38 23 75 39 61% 7 15
South Carolina NA NA 124 87 76.99% 14 41
South Dakota 35 21 70 43 90.14% 36 18
Tennessee 17 13 99 80 87.74% 34 45
Texas 16 11 150 118 81.65% 22 46
Utah 15 11 75 45 70% 8 10
Vermont 30 20 150 127 93.04% 40 35
Washington 25 16 98 72 87.13% 33 26
West Virginia 17 6 100 39 44.66% 4 9
Wisconsin 17 12 99 65 82.8% 24 16
Wyoming 15 9 60 36 75% 12 23
Totals: 1,167 708 4,958 3,153 77.31% NA NA

See also