Romney has better odds of winning the GOP nod, but Huntsman would have better odds against Obama.
Here’s an amusing deviation from our regularly scheduled programming. Dan Hopkins, a political scientist at Georgetown, had a little fun today playing with betting odds at Intrade. Based on what people are betting right now:
Romney has a 0.299 probability of winning the GOP nomination, much better than Huntsman’s 0.150 probability.
But assuming that Romney won the nomination, he would have only a 0.411 probability of beating Obama, worse than Huntsman’s 0.480.
So Romney has better odds of winning the GOP nod, but Huntsman would have better odds against Obama. (Assuming that we have any faith in the odds that Intrade calculates, of course.)
(To be clear: A probability is on a scale of 0 to 1. I guess another way to read it is to say that a 0.299 probability is a 29.9% chance.)
To avoid a lawsuit, the redistricting committee will need to take care how the new districts divide minority populations.
Utah’s Hispanic population continued to grow during the 2000s. Statewide, the Hispanic population grew by 78% (from 201,559 to 358,340) in the 2000s, bringing it to 13% of Utah’s total population. Although 13% is still a small minority, this is significant growth from 9% in 2000 and 5% in 1990.
Which counties have seen the most Hispanic growth?
Hispanic growth has varied from county to county, however. Every county (except Daggett) saw growth in its Hispanic population during the 2000s. As a percent of the total population, Hispanic populations have increased by anywhere from slightly less than a percentage point (in San Juan County) to almost 8.5 percentage points (in Wasatch County) since 2000.
Salt Lake County’s Hispanic population grew by 68% (from 106,787 to 176,015) in the 2000s. Of 131,268 new residents in Salt Lake County since 2000, 69,288 are Hispanic, accounting for almost 53% of the county’s overall growth. In Utah County, Hispanics accounted for 20% of the overall growth. Statewide, Hispanics accounted for 51% of overall population growth.
When do racial/ethnic issues affect redistricting?
So how is this relevant to the redistricting process here in Utah? It might not be. Historically, racial and ethnic issues have influenced redistricting mostly in the South. There, courts have occasionally struck down redistricting plans that dilute minority voters.
You can’t usually run into this problem unless you draw a district map that spreads a concentrated minority population over several districts. If there were a large population of blacks in an area, for example, but the district lines were drawn in a way that spread them over several districts rather than allowing them to be a natural majority in a single compact district, then the courts would be likely to strike that down. This has occurred several times in southern states since passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which set up these rules.
Will Hispanic growth affect Utah redistricting?
Utah has never had a concentrated enough minority population to need to worry much about this part of the Voting Rights Act. In most of the state, that continues to be the case. But in light of the 2010 Census data, that may be changing.
The trickiest area may be Salt Lake County, the most populous county and also home to the largest Hispanic population. In fact, Hispanic growth has driven most of the overall growth in Salt Lake City and in a few surrounding cities (South Salt Lake, Taylorsville, and West Valley City). Each has a large Hispanic minority, ranging from 19% to 33% of their total populations.
As it happens, these are the same cities that tend to vote Democratic. If legislative Republicans attempt a partisan gerrymander, then we can expect them to try dividing up the concentrated Democratic populations from these areas across several districts, so that neighboring Republican-leaning districts each absorb a portion of the Democratic voters. But if legislative Republicans try that, they may unintentionally spread a concentrated Hispanic population into several white-majority districts. If that happens, the map would be vulnerable to a lawsuit based on the Voting Rights Act.
To avoid a lawsuit, the redistricting committee will need to take care how the new districts divide minority populations. If the new districts dilute minority voters’ political influence by spreading out a concentrated population of Hispanics over several districts, then the map may wind up in court.
This is part of a series of posts about redistricting in Utah. For an overview, read the introductory post. My talented research assistant, Robert Richards, contributed heavily to this series.
Population change may cost Democrats 2 seats in the Utah House and 1 in the Senate.
A few days ago, we posted some information about population change within Utah’s 75 state House districts. Because the 2010 Census reports a population of 2,763,885 in Utah, each Utah House district will need roughly 36,852 people in it. As we reported earlier, Utah and Davis Counties will need to gain districts, but Salt Lake County will need to lose some.1
Perhaps the more interesting question isn’t about which counties will gain or lose districts, though. Perhaps the more interesting question is about which parties will gain or lose districts.
To get at this question, we looked to see how many people live in the typical Democratic-held district as opposed to the typical Republican-held district. (We’re classifying each district as Democratic or Republican based on the incumbent legislator’s party, not based on voter partisanship.)
We find that the average Democratic House district has 32,102 people in it. That’s 4,750 too few people. Meanwhile, the average Republican House district has 38,243 people in it. That’s 1,392 too many.
The pattern is the same in the Utah Senate. The average Democratic Senate district has 91,742 people in it, which is 3,563 below the target of 95,306 residents. Meanwhile, the average Republican Senate district has 96,440 people in it, which is 1,134 people too many.
These numbers do not bode well for legislative Democrats. They get even worse when we look at them another way. Consider this:
There are 17 Democrats in the Utah House. Together, their 17 districts are home to 545,742 residents. But if each district is supposed to have 36,852 people, then 545,742 residents is only enough to fill 14.8 districts. Meanwhile, the 2,218,143 people living in the 58 Republican districts are enough to fill 60.2 districts.
There are 7 Democrats in the Utah Senate. Together, their 7 districts are home to 565,807 residents. But if each of the 29 districts is supposed to have 95,306 people, then 565,807 residents is only enough to fill 5.9 districts. Meanwhile, the 2,198,078 people living in the 22 Republican districts are enough to fill 23.1 districts.
Based on these back-of-the-envelope calculations, population change may cost Democrats 2 seats in the Utah House and 1 in the Senate.
Democrats may respond that they’re already underrepresented in the Utah legislature due to partisan gerrymandering dating back to 2001. After all, Democratic candidates for the Utah House received 30% of the votes statewide in 2010, but they won only 23% of the seats. If Democrats lose 2 seats in the House, then their seat share would fall from 23% to 20%.
How is it possible that Democrats could win 30% of the votes statewide but only 20-23% of the seats? This post is already long enough, so we’ll stop here for now. But we’ll answer that question in a couple days. Stay tuned. Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that gerrymandering is not to blame.
This is part of a series of posts about redistricting in Utah. For an overview, read the introductory post. My talented research assistant, Robert Richards, contributed heavily to this series.
We calculated a partisanship score for each county by averaging together its presidential vote with its gubernatorial vote for every election since 1980. In 2008, we find that no county voted less than 57% Republican when its presidential and gubernatorial votes were averaged together in this manner.
Every county is a Republican county
That means there are no longer any Democratic-majority counties in Utah. That’s a change from 1992, when two counties gave a clear majority of their votes to Democrats (Carbon and Summit), and another four counties gave just shy of a majority (between 45 and 50%) of their votes to Democrats (Grand, Salt Lake, San Juan, and Tooele).
That was 1992. In 2008, no county voted less than 57% Republican. Put differently, no county gave more than 43% of its vote to Democrats.
Almost every county has moved right
Between 1992 and 2008, only Kane County decreased its share of Republican voters, dropping slightly from 81% Republican to 77% Republican. Every other county increased its share of Republican voters.
The most striking change was in Carbon County, which made a huge shift from voting only 34% Republican in 1992 to 61% in 2008. That’s a 27 percentage point shift.
Even Salt Lake County moved to the right. In fact, the county’s average Republican vote share in presidential and gubernatorial elections has increased from 54% in 1992 to 60% in 2008.
In the table below, I have listed GOP support in 1992 and 2008 for Utah’s 10 most populous counties. The table is sorted by the right-most column, which shows how many percentage points each county moved to the right between 1992 and 2008.
County
1992 GOP
2008 GOP
Change
Utah
82%
85%
+3
Iron
81
85
+3
Washington
79
82
+3
Cache
76
81
+5
Davis
72
78
+6
Salt Lake
54
60
+6
Box Elder
79
86
+7
Summit
49
57
+8
Weber
61
72
+11
Tooele
55
73
+18
The 10 biggest movements toward the GOP
Carbon County’s massive 27 point movement toward the GOP doesn’t show up in the preceding table, since Carbon County is not one of the 10 most populous counties. Carbon County’s change is especially striking given its history with mining and union sentiment. Many of the largest movements toward the GOP occurred in less populated places like Carbon County. In the table below, I list the ten largest partisan shifts in descending order. Most of these counties are among Utah’s least populated counties.
County
1992 GOP
2008 GOP
Change
Carbon
34%
61%
+27
Emery
60
79
+19
Tooele
55
73
+18
Daggett
59
76
+17
Beaver
64
81
+17
Juab
64
80
+16
Uintah
72
87
+15
Duchesne
73
87
+14
Morgan
73
87
+14
Rich
76
88
+12
Every county (except Kane) became more Republican between 1992 and 2008. Many became WAY more Republican. This rightward trend across the state has important implications for this year’s round of redistricting. The state’s GOP dominance is spread throughout the state, which will make it relatively easy for the legislature to draw four Republican-majority districts. This is especially true if the legislature blends urban and rural areas in each district, since rural areas have made some of the biggest shifts toward the GOP.
Now for a technical note. Our methodology assumes that 2008 was not an unusually Republican year in Utah when compared to other recent years. From looking at the statewide partisanship figures we posted yesterday, it appears that this assumption is sound. To double check, though, we also conducted a modified version of this analysis. Details are in the footnote at the end of this sentence.1
We’ve now written two posts on partisanship. Last time, we looked at the overall statewide trend toward the GOP. Today, we looked at the county-level trend. In our next post, we’ll look at how partisan shifts might affect Utah’s 75 state House districts.
This is part of a series of posts about redistricting in Utah. For an overview, read the introductory post. My talented research assistant, Robert Richards, contributed heavily to this series.
This movement toward the GOP represents a continuation of a rightward trend that began decades ago
In a few days, we’ll post Census data showing that Hispanics (who often vote Democratic) have become a larger percentage of the state’s population. This trend might lead you to expect the Republican hold on the state to weaken somewhat. That expectation would be wrong. The Republican Party has only grown stronger in Utah over the past decade.
The figure below shows the GOP advantage in Utah since statehood. For each presidential election year, we plot the difference between the Republican presidential candidate’s vote share in Utah and his vote share nationally. To be clear, the figure does not show whether Utah voted Democratic or Republican in any given year; it shows whether Utah voted more Republican than the rest of the nation in any given year.1
In 2008, for example, John McCain won only 46.3% of the vote nationally, but 64.5% of Utah’s vote.2 Subtracting 46.3 from 64.5, we estimate an 18.2 percentage point GOP advantage in Utah for 2008. You can see our estimates for each year in the figure below.
Utah's continuing shift to the right (click to enlarge)
The preceding figure shows a clear shift to the right during the 2000s. Although the GOP advantage fell somewhat in 2008 relative to 2000 and 2004, each of the estimates from the 2000s is higher than any estimate from 1984 through 1996. The GOP advantage in Utah relative to the nation was stronger in 2000, 2004, and 2008 than in the preceding four presidential elections.
Data from the biennial Utah Colleges Exit Poll shows the same pattern, at least for years since 1982 (when the exit poll got started). Exit polls from 1992-2000 found an average of 58.5% of respondents calling themselves Republican, but exit polls from 2002-2010 found an average of 62.8% calling themselves Republican. That comes out to a rise of 4.3 percentage points in the 2000s as compared to the 1990s.
The figure below shows exit poll data from 1982-2010. Note that every exit poll estimate from the 2000s is higher than every estimate from the 1990s and 1980s (except 1994).3
Both figures show a continuing movement toward the GOP in the 2000s (with a slight reversal in 2008 and 2010). This movement toward the GOP represents a continuation of a rightward trend that began decades ago, following a New Deal-era period of Democratic strength in the state.
Republicans are hoping to draw four Republican-majority districts. With these partisan shifts, they could probably accomplish that. (Of course, simply drawing four Republican-majority districts doesn’t mean that Rep. Matheson won’t keep winning in one of them. He’s been winning in a Republican majority district for a decade now. But we’ll address Rep. Matheson in a few days.)
In this post, we’ve talked about partisan shifts from a statewide perspective. In our next post, we’ll take a county-by-county look. It turns out that every county but one moved toward the GOP between 1992 and 2008. And one county made a striking move from majority Democratic in 1992 to majority Republican in 2008. But you’ll need to wait until our next post to see the details. (Update: That post is now available here.)
This is part of a series of posts about redistricting in Utah. For an overview, read the introductory post. My talented research assistant, Robert Richards, contributed heavily to this series.
Utah County and Davis County (combined) need to gain three districts, but Salt Lake County needs to lose three.
Utah’s House of Representatives has 75 districts. Although most people seem to be talking about how the legislature will draw Utah’s four U.S. House districts, these 75 legislative districts matter just as much. So let’s take a look.1
With 2,763,885 people living in Utah according to the 2010 Census, each district’s ideal population is 36,852. After the 2001 redistricting, each district’s population was roughly equal. However, growth over the past 10 years has been extremely uneven. The most populous district in the 2010 Census, District 56, has grown to 90,503 residents over the past 10 years. The second most populous is District 52, with 61,341 people. Together, these two districts have enough people to fill more than four districts.
The table below shows the 8 most populous Utah House districts in descending order. Incumbents representing one of these districts are likely to see their district split in some fashion.
District (incumbent, party, county)
2010 population
Ideal population
Difference
56 (Sumsion, R, Utah)
90,503
36,852
+53,651
52 (Wimmer, R, Salt Lake)
61,341
36,852
+24,489
50 (Newbold, R, Salt Lake)
54,430
36,852
+17,578
42 (Bird, R, Salt Lake)
51,909
36,852
+15,057
71 (Last, R, Washington)
51,723
36,852
+14,871
13 (Ray, R, Davis)
50,040
36,852
+13,188
27 (Dougall, R, Utah)
49,237
36,852
+12,385
65 (Gibson, R, Utah)
49,224
36,852
+12,372
By contrast, the table below shows the 8 least populated Utah House districts in ascending order. Some of these incumbents will see their district merged with neighboring districts.
District (incumbent, party, county)
2010 population
Ideal population
Difference
49 (D. Brown, R, Salt Lake)
27,228
36,852
-9,624
4 (Butterfield, R, Cache/Rich)
28,046
36,852
-8,806
48 (Christensen, R, Salt Lake)
28,348
36,852
-8,504
46 (Poulson, D, Salt Lake)
28,377
36,852
-8,475
63 (Sanpei, R, Utah)
28,493
36,852
-8,359
28 (King, D, Salt Lake)
29,137
36,852
-7,715
45 (Eliason, R, Salt Lake)
29,393
36,852
-7,459
60 (Daw, R, Utah)
29,398
36,852
-7,454
The table below presents another way to think about these changes in local population. For Utah’s 7 most populous counties, I have listed how many Utah House districts presently lie (roughly) within that county’s boundaries. I have also divided the county’s 2010 population by 36,852 to see how many districts will need to lie within each county’s boundaries following the 2011 redistricting.
County
Current districts
Needed districts
Salt Lake
31
27.9
Utah
12.5
14.0
Davis
7
8.3
Weber
7
6.3
Washington
3
3.7
Cache
3
3.1
Tooele
1.5
1.6
Rest of state
10
10.1
Although Salt Lake County gained 131,268 residents between 2000 and 2010–more than any other county except Utah County–this growth rate was slower (as a percent) than in 16 of Utah’s 29 counties. As a result, Utah County and Davis County (combined) need to gain three districts, but Salt Lake County needs to lose three.
In a couple days, we’ll take a look at how these different growth rates around the state may affect the legislature’s partisan balance. In particular, we’ll look at how many Republican seats need to be split (or merged), and also at how many Democratic seats need to be split (or merged).
This is part of a series of posts about redistricting in Utah. For an overview, read the introductory post. My talented research assistant, Robert Richards, contributed heavily to this series.
With each district losing between 22% and 28% of its population to the new district, a wholesale redrawing of district lines is likely.
Utah’s rapid population growth over the past 10 years has earned it a fourth seat in Congress. Even if Utah had not gained a seat, though, any redistricting plan would have to start by considering how the population has continued shifting toward Utah’s urbanized north. After all, the best way to get your redistricting plan struck down in court is to draw districts with unequal populations.
The 2010 Census reports 2,763,885 people living in Utah. With four districts, each will need roughly 690,971 people. Although it would be nearly impossible to get exactly 690,971 people in each district, the courts will not allow much deviation from that ideal.
Utah’s four most populous counties–Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, and Weber–are home to enough people (2,083,934) to fill three of those districts on their own, with 11,020 people to spare. These four counties have added 381,484 people since 2000, enough to fill more than half a district.
The figures below show exactly where the growth has occurred over the past twenty years. The first figure shows population growth during the 1990s; the second figure shows growth during the 2000s. In both figures, the same five counties appear in the highest growth category. When we measure growth as the number of new residents (not as a percent), the fastest growing county in the 2000s was Utah County, followed by Salt Lake, Davis, Washington, and Weber Counties.
Population change, 1991-2000
Population change, 2001-2010
Because of these growth patterns, Utah’s third district has become overpopulated relative to the other two districts. The 1st district (Rob Bishop) is centered in Weber and Davis Counties; the 2nd (Jim Matheson) starts in eastern Salt Lake County, then wraps around the southeast edge of the state and over to Washington County; the 3rd (Jason Chaffetz) is centered in Utah County. The map below shows the current district boundaries.
2001-2010 U.S. House districts
As shown in the table below, the 3rd district is overpopulated by 275,261 people. But even the least populated district (the 2nd) will need to shed 200,002 people in order to draw a fourth district. With each district losing between 22% and 28% of its population to the new district, a wholesale redrawing of district lines is likely.
This is part of a series of posts about redistricting in Utah. For an overview, read the introductory post. My talented research assistant, Robert Richards, contributed heavily to this series.
Over the next couple weeks, we will publish several posts looking at Utah’s ongoing redistricting process. We’ll begin by looking closely at the 2010 U.S. Census results and discussing what they might mean for redistricting. We’ll also take a look at how Utah’s partisan balance has evolved over the past decade.
Some posts will look more at how the four U.S. House districts will need to be drawn. Other posts will look more at how the 75 Utah House districts will need to be drawn.
Things may change, but expect to see the following posts appear over the next few days. (I’ll come back and link to all the posts here as each post goes live.)
What makes a legislator a good candidate for leadership?
Last fall, Becky Lockhart narrowly won the support of her fellow House Republicans and became the new Speaker, ousting David Clark. Meanwhile, Michael Waddoups fought off a challenge from Dan Liljenquist, remaining in place as Senate President.
What makes a legislator a good candidate for leadership? There are, of course, many factors. One is political skill. Another is interpersonal skill. Yet another is ambition and thick skin–after all, not everybody wants the media flack that comes with leading the chamber.
But if we set aside all these other factors (a BIG “if”), we would expect House Republicans (or House Democrats, or Senate Democrats, or Senate Republicans) to choose as their leader the person who is most “representative” of the caucus ideologically. The entire House Republican caucus is very conservative, but we wouldn’t expect them to choose their most extremely conservative member to lead them–we would expect them to choose somebody whose views are at the middle of the House Republican caucus. Political scientists call this the median voter theorem.
You may have seen my post from last November when I used this logic to explain Becky Lockhart’s victory over David Clark. At the time, it appeared that Lockhart’s ideology might just be closer to the center of the House Republican caucus than Clark’s was. Now that I’ve got good ideology data from the 2011 legislative session, let’s revisit that idea.
A few days ago, I posted ideology scores for every Utah legislator based on their voting records in 2011. These scores range fro -100 to +100. That’s an arbitrary scale. The numbers are not percents or anything. They’re just an arbitrary scale showing who is to the right or left of whom. It’s not necessarily an honor to be the most conservative or most liberal person. After all, if Lenin were in the legislature, he’d get a score much lower than any Utah legislator, and if Mussolini were there, he’d get a score much higher than any Utah legislator. (No, I am not comparing any legislator to Lenin or Mussolini. Let’s be clear.) A high score doesn’t mean “most loyal Republican,” it simply means “further right than anybody else.”
Who could run for House leadership?
Of the 58 House Republicans, those closest to the caucus median are (in descending order) Brad Galvez, Dean Sanpei, Roger Barrus, David Butterfield, Julie Fisher, and Brad Last. There’s not much ideological difference in these six. (Since there is an even number of House Republicans, Brad Galvez and Dean Sanpei are tied for the median position.)
Of the 17 House Democrats, those closest to the House Democratic median are (in descending order) Lynn Hemingway, Carol Spackman Moss, and Mark Wheatley. (Since there is an odd number of House Democrats, Lynn Hemingway lies exactly at the median.)
That major caveat here is that there is a BIG cluster of ideologically-similar House Republicans with ideology scores close to the median. You can see this in the figure below. I’ve written a “D” for each Democrat and an “R” for each Republican. The figure shows how many legislators have a score in each range. I’ve highlighted the median for each party in red, with runners up in green. (Click the image to enlarge it, if necessary.)
Distribution of ideology scores in the Utah House, 2011
The second major caveat is that ideology isn’t the only thing that matters in House elections. I am not forecasting that one of these legislators will become his or her party’s leader soon. I am only saying that these legislators might find it easier to build a coalition than somebody at the extremes might.
Who could run for Senate leadership?
Of 7 Senate Democrats, the median position is held by Pat Jones, followed by Ben McAdams and Karen Morgan.
Of 22 Senate Republicans, the median position is a tossup between Steve Urquhart and Wayne Niederhauser, followed by Stuart Reid or Daniel Thatcher. As with House Republicans, though, there’s a big cluster of Senate Republicans with similar views, and many of them could claim to represent the caucus’s views. Take a look at the figure:
Distribution of ideology scores in the Utah Senate, 2011
The same caveats apply to the Senate as to the House. Remember, I’m not actually predicting a leadership battle. I’m just having fun with the numbers. This is the sort of thing that we love to play with in political science. So please don’t take this post too seriously.
For my complete list of ideology scores for the Utah legislature, read this post.
Interest group ratings are certainly useful, but it turns out there’s a much, much better way to figure out which legislators are most conservative and most liberal.
Credit where it’s due: Robert Richards, my undergraduate research assistant extraordinaire, contributed heavily to this research.
After each year’s legislative session, a handful of interest groups assign grades to each member of the Utah legislature. After collecting all the 2011 ratings and averaging across them, the Salt Lake Tribune recently published its scorecard for the 2011 Utah legislature, calling Rep. Carl Wimmer the most conservative legislator and Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck the most liberal legislator.
Interest group ratings are certainly useful, but it turns out there’s a much, much better way to figure out which legislators are most conservative and most liberal. Let’s take a look.
The trouble with interest group ratings
The Tribune’s ideological scores are based on rankings from the Utah Sierra Club, Parents for Choice in Education, the Utah Education Association, the Utah Taxpayers Association, and GrassRoots. Each group is looking only at certain issues as it evaluates each legislator. For example, the Sierra Club’s ratings look only at votes dealing with conservation and wildlife, while the PCE and UEA ratings look only at votes dealing with education.
Trouble is, there were 782 bills introduced during the 2011 legislative session, many of which have little to do with education or conservation. As such, ideology scores based on these interest group ratings will be less accurate than ideology scores that account for every vote cast.
Now, I’m not saying that interest group ratings are useless; after all, I’ve used them plenty of times in the past (for example, see here or here). But I am saying there might be a better, more thorough way to estimate each legislator’s ideology.
A better way to measure ideology
Political scientists have developed a way to measure each legislator’s ideology that accounts for every vote cast in the legislature. These are known as NOMINATE scores. (It’s an acronym, hence the capitol letters; see a history of NOMINATE scores here.) NOMINATE scores have been used to study Congressional ideology for years. However, we have not had NOMINATE scores available for Utah legislators in the past because they are so extremely time-consuming to calculate.
There is more than one version of the NOMINATE algorithm (we use W-NOMINATE), but the basic idea is to use all of the votes a legislator casts in a legislative session to assign a score between -100 (more liberal) and +100 (more conservative). The specific numbers have no meaning; just because a score comes out below 0 does not mean that a legislator is a “liberal.” The numbers only have meaning relative to one another. If your score is closer to -100 than mine is, then you are more liberal than me.
These caveats are important as we proceed:
NOMINATE scores are comparable only within a single chamber within a single year. Since scores are calculated separately for the Utah Senate and Utah House, you cannot compare a Senator’s score to a Representative’s to see who is more liberal. Sorry. NOMINATE scores do not allow for that. (Frankly, interest group scores don’t allow for this either, and for the same reason: They are based on a different set of votes in each chamber, each year.)
NOMINATE scores have no intrinsic meaning. There is not a number that means “conservative” or “liberal.” The scores are comparable only relative to other scores within the same chamber, within the same year.
A lower number is more liberal, a higher number is more conservative. But remember, “0” doesn’t mean “moderate,” it just indicates somebody near the ideological center of the legislature. Given how conservative the legislature is overall, the center is also conservative by national standards.
Ideology scores for the Utah House
So how does Utah’s state legislature look based on a NOMINATE analysis? We ran the necessary calculations for Utah’s 2011 legislative session, and found results similar to the Tribune’s in many respects–but not all.1 Like the Tribune, we find that Reps. Rebecca Chavez-Houck and Carl Wimmer are the most ideologically extreme Utah legislators. Our rankings differ on other members, though. The table below compares our rankings for the Utah House to the Tribune’s rankings:
Salt Lake Tribune
NOMINATE scores
#1 liberal
Rebecca Chavez-Houck
Rebecca Chavez-Houck
#2 liberal
Brian King
Joel Briscoe
#3 liberal
Janice Fisher
Jackie Biskupski
…
#3 conservative
Keith Grover
Kenneth Sumsion
#2 conservative
John Dougall
John Dougall
#1 conservative
Carl Wimmer
Carl Wimmer
In some cases, our rankings are very different from the Tribune’s. Consider Speaker Becky Lockhart and former Speaker David Clark. The Tribune ranks Rep. Clark the #4 most conservative Representative, with Lockhart down at #27, suggesting that they are far apart. But by taking account of every vote cast, we find that Rep. Clark comes in at #15 most conservative with Lockhart at #13–a trivial difference.
Here’s another difference. The Tribune found that the most liberal Republicans were to the left of the most conservative Democrats in the Utah House. By contrast, we found that every Republican was to the right of every Democrat in the Utah House. Click to view our complete list of ideology scores for Utah Representatives.
Ideology scores for the Utah Senate
Let’s move to the Senate. The Tribune identified Mark Madsen as the most conservative Senator, with Scott Jenkins somewhere closer to the middle. But by taking account of every vote cast in the 2011 session, we find that Scott Jenkins was actually the most conservative Senator, with Mark Madsen the #5 most conservative.
Salt Lake Tribune
NOMINATE scores
#1 liberal
Ben McAdams
Ross Romero
#2 liberal
Ross Romero
Luz Robles
#3 liberal
Gene Davis
Ben McAdams
…
#3 conservative
Howard Stephenson
Chris Buttars
#2 conservative
Wayne Niederhauser
Margaret Dayton
#1 conservative
Mark Madsen
Scott Jenkins
Having spent plenty of time sitting in the legislature’s galleries over the past few years, the NOMINATE rankings just seem to ring more true than the Tribune rankings. I’m not sure I would have guessed that Senator Jenkins would be the most conservative, but I would certainly expect Senators Dayton and Buttars to be among the most extreme conservatives in the Senate. Click to view our complete list of ideology scores for the Utah Senate.
Final thoughts
Let me stress that I’m not trying to be harsh on the Tribune. I’ve used the exact same interest group scores in the past.
But why use NOMINATE scores instead of interest group ratings? Again, NOMINATE scores are more comprehensive than interest group scores, because they use every contested vote on every issue, rather than using only a few votes on a single issue. This also eliminates any bias involved in choosing which votes to count. In short, NOMINATE scores take into account everything a legislator does, producing a reliable, unbiased picture of where they stand on the ideological spectrum.
A few clarifications
(I added this update a week after publishing the preceding post. Some folks are misinterpreting these scores. Here’s hoping this update helps.)
It’s not necessarily an honor to be the most conservative or most liberal person. After all, if Lenin were in the legislature, he’d get a score much lower than any Utah legislator, and if Mussolini were there, he’d get a score much higher than any Utah legislator. A high score doesn’t mean “most loyal Republican,” it simply means “further right than anybody else.” Even if you are a very conservative (or very liberal) voter, you should not assume that the person with the most extreme score is the one with the views closest to your own.
Also, the rankings are less important than the actual scores. Many scores are clustered very close together, so that there is very little ideological difference between the #20 and #30 most conservative legislators. Don’t just look at the ranks; look at the actual scores. (To see the actual scores, follow the links given above.)
We are professors of political science sharing academic research relevant to Utah. Posts are not peer reviewed and may discuss work in progress that is subject to future revision. Learn more. Each post reflects only its author’s views.
Over the next couple weeks, we will publish several posts looking at Utah’s ongoing redistricting process. We’ll begin by looking closely at the 2010 U.S. Census results and discussing what they might mean for redistricting. We’ll also take a look at how Utah’s partisan balance has evolved over the past decade.
Some posts will look more at how the four U.S. House districts will need to be drawn. Other posts will look more at how the 75 Utah House districts will need to be drawn.
Things may change, but expect to see the following posts appear over the next few days. (I’ll come back and link to all the posts here as each post goes live.)
So keep us in your feed readers. We’ll be posting something almost every weekday for the next couple weeks.