Daily Brew: Do you live in a split-ticket district?

July 11, 2018

Split-ticket districts: 25 Republican House districts voted for Clinton; 13 Democratic districts voted for Trump   Welcome to the Thursday, July 12 Brew. Here's what we have in store for you as you sip your morning brew: 25 Republican House districts voted for Clinton; 13 Democratic districts voted for Trump California Supreme Court to decide whether California Three States initiative can remain on ballot Maine House fails to overturn governor's veto of Medicaid expansion funding   Split-ticket districts: 25 Republican House districts voted for Clinton; 13 Democratic districts voted for Trump Thirty-eight U.S. House districts have a representative from the opposite party of the presidential candidate who won the district in 2016. Twenty-five districts with Republican representatives voted for Hillary Clinton, 13 with Democratic representatives voted for Donald Trump. Twenty-two of the 25 Clinton/Republican seats are rated as a toss-up or as more likely to elect a Democrat by at least one forecaster. Eight incumbents in these districts are not seeking re-election. Seven districts are in California, while four are in Pennsylvania.   The Trump/Democrat seats are less vulnerable according to forecasters. One is predicted to elect a Republican, two are toss-ups, and the rest are forecast to remain Democratic. Four incumbents are not seeking re-election. Eleven of these 13 districts are in midwestern or northeastern states.   There were originally 35 split districts in the 2016 election, but two more Clinton/Republican districts were created when the Pennsylvania congressional map was redrawn in February 2018. An additional Trump/Democratic district came about in March 2018 when Conor Lamb (D) won a special election to replace Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy (R). The 35 split districts in 2016 was the sixth-lowest number of split districts since 1904. The highest number was in 1972 when 192 districts split. Learn more         Does California Proposition 9, the Three States Initiative, make a major change to the state's constitutional framework? The Planning and Conservation League (PCL), a Sacramento-based nonprofit environmental organization, filed a lawsuit in the California Supreme Court to remove the Three States Initiative, Proposition 9, from the ballot. The lawsuit claimed, “Proposition 9, which would make sweeping changes in our state’s basic constitutional framework, constitutes a patent misuse of California’s initiative process.” As of yesterday, Tim Draper, the initiative’s sponsor, had not responded to the litigation. The state Supreme Court will decide whether to take up the case in the coming weeks. The lawsuit focuses on whether Proposition 9 would make a major change to the state's constitutional framework. Article 18 of the California Constitution says that ballot initiatives can amend the state constitution. However, constitutional revisions require a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber or a vote of delegates, a constitutional convention, and voter approval. The California Supreme Court has defined constitutional revisions as changes that alter the basic governmental framework and concluded that initiatives cannot make revisions. Section 3 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution requires the consent of the California State Legislature and the U.S. Congress to divide California. The initiative itself states that the initiative fulfills the role of the legislature. The initiative would task the governor with asking Congress to divide the state of California into three states.   Learn more→   Maine House fails to overturn governor's veto of Medicaid expansion funding In an 85-58 vote, the Democratic-controlled Maine House of Representatives failed to override Republican Gov. Paul LePage's veto of LD 837, legislation funding Medicaid expansion in the state. LePage vetoed the legislation on July 2, saying it was fiscally irresponsible and a short-term plan. Lawmakers needed a two-thirds supermajority (101 members) to reverse the governor's decision. LD 837 would have provided $60 million in state funds, paired with $500 million in federal funds, in fiscal year 2019 to expand Medicaid. The legislature approved the bill on June 20. LePage has vetoed Medicaid expansion six times during his administration. Maine voters approved a ballot measure in 2017 to require the state to provide Medicaid through MaineCare (the state Medicaid program). LePage asked the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to delay implementation until the legislature approved funding.   Learn more→