Electoral competitiveness in Arizona, 1912-2014

Competitiveness in state legislatures
Navigation
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Published in April 2015

The 2014 national election continued the decline in U.S. electoral competitiveness that has occurred since 1972. The decline of electoral competitiveness that has been seen on the national stage, has also been seen in states. For example, the percentage of uncontested state senate elections in Arizona has decreased from 50 percent in 1968 to 23.3 percent in 2014.

This page contains electoral competitiveness information at various levels of government in this state up to 2014. For more recent information about state legislative competitiveness nationwide, click here.

The data presented below are part of a larger project on electoral competitiveness, the full report is available in the table to the right. The images below illustrate the changes in the competitiveness of elections in Arizona from 1912 through 2014. The data used to generate these graphs is available in the tables below those images.

Background

Since 1972, electoral competitiveness has tended to decrease across the United States. During that time, people who are members of the same political party have become more likely to live in the same area as one another than in the past. Nationally, the rate at which incumbents won reelection is also close to an all-time high. However, this does not have to do with incumbents deriving more advantages from holding office than before. It is because they are more likely to be in safe districts for their party. In contrast to the high incumbency reelection rate, the rate at which incumbents run for reelection has gone down over time.

Competitiveness is declining. On the national level, the percentage of state legislative elections won by 5 percent or less was nearly the lowest in the 1972 to 2014 period. In an absolute sense, the incidence of such elections was very low. Only 4.9 percent of U.S. residents in districts with elections saw their election won by 5 percent or less. Similarly, more Americans lived in areas with uncontested elections than ever before in the time period studied: 36.7 percent. State legislative primaries were often found to be won by wide margins or not contested at all. The rate at which incumbents won reelection is also close to an all-time high. However, this does not have to do with incumbents deriving more advantages from holding office than before. It is because they are more likely to be in safe districts for their party. In contrast to the high incumbency reelection rate, the rate at which incumbents run for reelection has gone down over time.

Competitiveness in elections in Arizona

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph01_Marg_Stateno3Arizona2015_04_23.png|Marginal Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph02_Uncont_Stateno3Arizona2015_04_23.png|Uncontested Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph03_Inc_Stateno3Arizona2015_04_23.png|Incumbent Win Rates]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph04_US_HS_Stateno3Arizona2015_04_23.png|Competitiveness in U.S. House Seats]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph05_UpBallot_Stateno3Arizona2015_04_23.png|Margin of Victory in Up Ballot Elections]

Table explanation

The columns in the tables below for both state senates and state houses are as follow:

• Seats: number of seats in the state legislative chamber.
• Percent Seats Up: percent of seats in the state legislative chamber that are up in a particular year for the November election.
• Percent Won By Dem: the percent of seats in the state legislature that were won by a Democrat.
• Percent Unusable: percent of seats for the state legislative chamber that weren’t usable to compute whether a race was marginal or not for this chamber in this year because of missing data. This column usually says “0.”
• Percent with 5% margin: percent of seats for a state chamber in a year that were won by 5% or less.
• Percent with 10% margin: percent of seats for a state chamber in a year that were won by 10% or less.
• Percent Unusable Other: percent of seats that have missing data that prevent the computation of whether an incumbent won or lost, whether an incumbent ran or not, or whether a race was uncontested. This column usually says “0.”
• Percent Uncontested: percent of races in a chamber that are uncontested.
• Percent Incumbent Win: percent of incumbents who ran for a state chamber in a particular year who won.
• Percent With Incumbent: number of incumbents running for reelection for a state-chamber in one year, divided by the number of seats that are up for election for that state-chamber, multiplied by 100.

The columns for the “Up ballot” tab are as follows:

• U.S. House Seats: number of U.S. House Seats that a state was apportioned in the year in question.
• Percent Not Usable: percent of U.S. House Seats in the state and year that aren’t usable to compute marginality or contestation, because of something unusual about the race.
• Percent With 5% Margin: percent of U.S. House races in the state and year that were won by 5% or less.
• Percent With 10% Margin: percent of U.S. House races in the state and year that were won by 10% or less.
• Percent Uncontested: percent of U.S. House races that were uncontested in the state and year.
• U.S. Senate 1 Margin: difference between the percent obtained by the winner of the U.S. Senate election with the U.S. Senate candidate receiving the second most votes.
• U.S. Senate 2 Margin: This is only recorded when a second election to the U.S. Senate was held because of a Senator not completing their term. For such elections, this is the difference between the percent obtained by the winner of the U.S. Senate election with the U.S. Senate candidate receiving the second most votes.
• President margin: difference between the percent of votes obtained by the presidential candidate receiving the most votes in a state minus the percent of votes obtained by the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes in a state.
• Governor margin: difference between the percent obtained by the winner of the gubernatorial election in a state with the gubernatorial candidate receiving the second most votes.

State Senate

State Senate competitiveness, Arizona
Year	Seats	% Seats up	% Won by Dem	% Unusable	% With 5% margin	% With 10% margin	% Unusuable other	% Uncontested	% Incumbent win	% With incumbent	% of Dem inc winning	% of Repub inc winning
1968	30	100	43.3	0	3.3	6.7	0	50	95.2	70	100	92.3
1970	30	100	40	0	3.3	16.7	0	46.7	100	53.3	100	100
1972	30	100	40	0	0	6.7	0	40	100	63.3	100	100
1974	30	100	60	0	13.3	30	0	40	72.7	73.3	90	58.3
1976	30	100	53.3	0	13.3	26.7	0	36.7	78.3	76.7	73.3	100
1978	30	100	46.7	0	6.7	13.3	0	50	85.2	90	76.9	92.9
1980	30	100	46.7	0	10	20	0	23.3	92.9	93.3	92.9	92.9
1982	30	100	40	0	13.3	16.7	0	23.3	95.5	73.3	91.7	100
1984	30	100	40	0	6.7	13.3	0	43.3	96.6	96.7	100	100
1986	30	100	36.7	0	3.3	3.3	0	53.3	100	76.7	100	100
1988	30	100	43.3	0	3.3	16.7	0	20	95.8	80	100	92.3
1990	30	100	56.7	0	10	26.7	0	26.7	78.3	76.7	91.7	63.6
1992	30	100	40	0	6.7	13.3	0	33.3	90.5	70	81.8	100
1994	30	100	36.7	0	0	3.3	0	50	100	66.7	100	100
1996	30	100	40	0	0	3.3	0	40	100	63.3	100	100
1998	30	100	46.7	0	0	6.7	0	63.3	95.8	80	100	92.9
2000	30	100	53.3	0	3.3	13.3	0	36.7	100	66.7	100	100
2002	30	100	43.3	0	0	10	0	50	100	36.7	100	100
2004	30	100	40	0	0	3.3	0	50	100	70	100	100
2006	30	100	43.3	0	6.7	16.7	0	23.3	100	70	100	100
2008	30	100	40	0	6.7	16.7	0	30	100	73.3	100	100
2010	30	100	30	0	0	13.3	0	30	76.9	43.3	50	100
2012	30	100	43.3	0	3.3	13.3	0	36.7	94.7	63.3	100	92.3
2014	30	100	43.3	0	10	16.7	0	23.3	100	63.3	100	100

State House

State House competitiveness, Arizona
Year	Seats	% Seats up	% Won by Dem	% Unusable	% With 5% margin	% With 10% margin	% Unusuable other	% Uncontested	% Incumbent win	% With incumbent	% of Dem inc winning	% of Repub inc winning
1968	60	100	43.3	0	5	10	0	45	97.7	71.7	94.1	100
1970	60	100	43.3	0	6.7	10	0	45	97.6	70	100	95.7
1972	60	100	36.7	0	5	11.7	0	28.3	97.6	70	93.8	100
1974	60	100	45	0	11.7	25	0	23.3	91.3	76.7	94.1	89.7
1976	60	100	36.7	0	11.7	26.7	0	40	93.6	78.3	84.2	100
1978	60	100	30	0	11.7	18.3	0	30	93.6	78.3	82.4	100
1980	60	100	28.3	0	6.7	8.3	0	33.3	98	85	93.8	100
1982	60	100	35	0	6.7	15	0	28.3	90.7	71.7	100	86.7
1984	60	100	36.7	0	5	13.3	0	53.3	94.4	90	95	94.1
1986	60	100	40	0	5	8.3	0	48.3	97.9	78.3	100	96.6
1988	60	100	43.3	0	8.3	11.7	0	45	95.5	73.3	100	91.7
1990	60	100	45	0	11.7	15	0	45	96	83.3	100	92.3
1992	60	100	41.7	0	6.7	16.7	0	40	93.3	50	92.9	100
1994	60	100	36.7	0	5	13.3	0	61.7	97.5	66.7	94.7	100
1996	60	100	36.7	0	5	15	0	46.7	95.3	71.7	100	93.1
1998	60	100	33.3	0	1.7	10	0	55	97.8	75	93.3	100
2000	60	100	40	0	10	25	0	50	94.3	58.3	100	90.9
2002	60	100	35	0	6.7	16.7	0	45	89.7	48.3	80	94.7
2004	60	100	36.7	0	8.3	15	0	45	95	66.7	100	96.2
2006	60	100	45	0	11.7	18.3	0	45	95.3	71.7	100	92.6
2008	60	100	41.7	0	15	25	0	38.3	95	66.7	89.5	100
2010	60	100	33.3	0	5	10	0	48.3	86.7	50	66.7	100
2012	60	100	40	0	8.3	20	0	55	93.9	55	100	91.3
2014	60	100	40	0	6.7	11.7	0	46.7	97.6	68.3	100	96.2

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, Arizona
Year	U.S. House Seats	% Not usable	% With 5% margin	% With 10% margin	% Uncontested	U.S. Senate 1 margin	U.S. Senate 2 margin	President margin	Governor margin
1912								19.5
1916								23.6
1920								11.2
1924								7.5
1928								15.4
1932								37.4
1936								44.4	41.7
1938									43
1940						43.8		27.6	31.9
1942									45.9
1944						38.7		18	57.2
1946	2	100			0	39.3			20.2
1948	2	0	0	0	0			10.2	19.3
1950	2	0	0	0	0	25.6			1.5
1952	2	0	0	50	0	2.6		16.7	20.3
1954	2	0	0	50	0				5
1956	2	0	0	50	0	22.8		22.1	19.1
1958	2	0	0	0	0	12.1			10.3
1960	2	0	0	0	0			11.2	18.6
1962	3	0	0	0	0	9.9			9.7
1964	3	0	33.3	33.3	0	2.9		1	6.5
1966	3	0	0	0	0				7.5
1968	3	0	0	0	0	14.4		22	15.7
1970	3	0	0	0	0	12			1.9
1972	4	0	0	25	0			34
1974	4	0	25	50	0	16.5			0.9
1976	4	0	25	50	0	11		17.2
1978	4	0	0	25	25				7.9
1980	4	0	0	0	0	1.1		36.4
1982	5	0	20	20	0	17.1			31.6
1984	5	0	20	20	40			34.2
1986	5	0	0	0	20	21			7
1988	5	0	0	0	20	16		21.5
1990	5	0	0	0	20				0.4
1991									4.7
1992	6	0	0	16.7	0	27.7		2.6
1994	6	0	0	0	0	15.2			8.5
1996	6	0	16.7	16.7	0			2.4
1998	6	0	0	33.3	0	43.4			25.4
2000	6	0	0	0	0	100		6.6
2002	8	0	12.5	12.5	0				1.1
2004	8	0	0	0	25	57.6		10.6
2006	8	0	12.5	25	12.5	10.2			27.7
2008	8	0	0	12.5	0			8.6
2010	8	0	12.5	50	0	25.9			12.3
2012	9	0	33.3	33.3	11.1	3.2		9.2
2014	9	0	11.1	22.2	22.2				12.4

Navigation map

Click on a different state below for more detailed data on electoral competitiveness.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Competitiveness in STATE state legislative elections

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox