1. 95 Pivot Counties voted Democratic in all four presidential elections from 1992 through 2004
2. Four Arkansas measures may not make the ballot as court determines compliance with background checks law
3. Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds majority of legislation passed during 2018 extraordinary session

95 Pivot Counties voted Democratic in all four presidential elections from 1992 through 2004

With the presidential election less than four months away, our election analysts dug a little deeper into one of our favorite subjects—Pivot Counties. Pivot Counties are the 206 counties that Ballotpedia identified as having voted for President Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for President Barack Obama (D) in both 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these counties by more than 580,000 votes and had an average margin of victory of 11.5 percentage points. 

We looked at the historical voting patterns of these counties in presidential elections dating back to 1992. In 98 of the 206 Pivot Counties, one party’s presidential nominee won each election from 1992 through 2004. Ninety-five of those 206 Pivot Counties—46%—voted for the Democratic nominee in that period. Three counties—one each in Illinois, Michigan, and South Carolina—voted for the Republican nominee over the same time period. In other words, 95 counties voted for the Democratic Party nominee from 1992-2012, before Trump carried them in 2016.

In looking at those 95 historically Democratic Pivot Counties, the largest number of them—20—are in Iowa. This trend mirrors Iowa’s statewide voting pattern in presidential races. Iowa voted for the Democratic candidate in every election between 1988 and 2012, except in 2004, when Bush defeated John Kerry (D), 49.9% to 49.2%. Iowa voted for Trump in 2016, 51% to 41%. 

The other 108 Pivot counties had the following voting patterns in the four presidential elections from 1992 to 2004: 

• 18 counties voted for the Democratic candidate once and the Republican candidate three times.

• 40 counties voted for both the Democratic and Republican candidates twice.

• 50 counties voted for the Democratic candidate three times and the Republican candidate once.

The winning presidential nominee in each election from 1992 to 2004 carried 35 Pivot Counties (17%). Wisconsin had the largest number of these Pivot Counties, with seven backing the winning presidential candidate in each election during that time period.

Learn more

       

---

Four Arkansas measures may not make the ballot as court determines compliance with background checks law

This is a busy time of year for ballot measures as state officials are certifying measures for the ballot, so expect more updates from across the country in the weeks ahead. Today, we’re exploring recent developments in Arkansas. 

The campaigns behind four citizen-initiated measures in Arkansas—regarding redistricting, ranked-choice voting, casino gambling, and eye surgeries—all submitted signatures targeting the Nov. 3 ballot. Whether voters decide them will depend on how the Arkansas Supreme Court rules on a lawsuit regarding the state’s background check requirement for signature gatherers.

The four campaigns and measures are:

• Safe Surgery Arkansas, which is sponsoring the Practice of Optometry Veto Referendum

• Arkansas Voters First, which is sponsoring the Arkansas Redistricting Commission Amendment

• Open Primaries Arkansas, which is sponsoring the Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

• Arkansas Wins in 2020, which is sponsoring the Authorize 16 Casino Licenses in 14 Counties Amendment.

Arkansas state law requires sponsors to certify to the secretary of state that each paid signature gatherer passed a state and federal criminal background check. Safe Surgery Arkansas, Arkansas Voters First, and Open Primaries Arkansas submitted statements certifying that the "background check, as well as a 50-state background check, have been timely acquired." Arkansas Wins in 2020 did not submit any such certification.

Secretary of State John Thurston (R) certified the optometry referendum back in January. Opponents of the effort filed a lawsuit in February claiming that sponsors did not adhere to the background check requirement. The Arkansas Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in mid to late August. 

On July 14, Thurston determined that sponsors for the three other measures did not comply with the background check requirement and rejected their petitions. The court’s ruling on the optometry referendum could affect whether those measures eventually make the ballot. 

From 1996 through 2018, an average of four measures appeared on the ballot during even-numbered years in Arkansas. During even-numbered years between 1996 and 2018, voters approved 35 of 48—73%—of statewide ballot measures in Arkansas and defeated 27%.

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds majority of legislation passed during 2018 extraordinary session

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld on July 9 the constitutionality of the majority of the legislation lawmakers passed during its December 2018 extraordinary legislative session. Lawmakers passed the legislation in the final days of the state’s Republican trifecta before Gov. Tony Evers (D) assumed office in January 2019. The legislature approved changes to certain state administrative processes on Dec. 5, 2018, and Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed the legislation on Dec. 14, 2018. The court did not approve certain provisions lawmakers passed regarding guidance documents.

The legislation brought major changes to administrative processes, including eliminating judicial deference to state agencies, abolishing sue-and-settle practices, and setting new standards for agencies’ regulatory guidance documents. 

A group of Wisconsin unions, led by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), filed suit against the measures, claiming they increased legislative authority over executive branch actions. The plaintiffs brought a facial challenge—meaning they claimed the legislation violated the separation of powers in all of its applications. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the legislation (with the exception of certain provisions concerning guidance documents) could be applied lawfully in some cases and that a lower court should have dismissed the facial challenge.

Three other lawsuits have challenged the extraordinary session legislation. A state lawsuit sought to void the legislation on the grounds that lawmakers unconstitutionally convened the extraordinary session. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in June 2019 that the state constitution grants legislators the authority to convene meetings. Two other federal lawsuits against the legislation passed during the extraordinary session are pending.

Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.