The four – Reps. Bill Cassidy, Steve Scalise, Charles Boustany and Rodney Alexander, signed on to a letter to EPA head Lisa Jackson demanding that higher standards for ozone levels be revisited before implementation. EPA is attempting, apparently by regulatory fiat and not through established procedure, to mandate that ozone “attainment levels” be improved across the country from the pre-2008 standard of .084 parts per million to somewhere between .060-.070 ppm. This, obviously, will cripple the state’s industrial sector.

The letter to Jackson, who is incidentally a native New Orleanian despite her agency’s seemingly relentless assault on Louisiana’s economy, reads as follows…

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We write to you today to express our concern regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reconsideration of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone.  This action departs from the normal five-year NAAQS review schedule established by the Clean Air Act.   We strongly support protecting the environment and ensuring the health of our constituents, but we have serious concerns that EPA’s departure from regular order in relation to an Ozone NAAQS review will have a significant negative impact on the economies of our states without enhancing air quality.  We are concerned proposals to lower the recently revised NAAQS will hurt working families and greatly increase operating costs for manufacturers during this time of serious economic difficulty.

As you know, the Clean Air Act requires that EPA conduct a detailed review of each NAAQS every five years.  This review, with extensive process, public input and comment, was last completed for the ozone standard in 2008.  Some groups argued for a significant tightening of the standard and others, including respected members of the scientific community, believed that the existing ozone standard was adequately protective.  In the end, EPA strengthened its existing 0.084 ppm standard to a much more stringent 0.075 ppm, declared that level adequately protective of human health and the environment, and commenced preparations for the next five year review. 

When EPA changed the ozone standard in 2008, many of our states were still coming into attainment of the old .084 ppm standard, and suffered significant economic and growth restrictions under the required state implementation plan (SIP).  States must again revise their SIPs to meet EPA’s more stringent 0.075 ppm standard, with even more adverse economic impacts.

This year, despite being midway through the ongoing five year NAAQS review process, EPA has proposed to bypass the transparency and technical input afforded by that statutory process and apply a more aggressive and costly ozone mandate.  Moreover, it does not appear that EPA is relying on any new scientific evidence in its decision, but is simply using the same data from 2008 to now reach a different conclusion.    

Areas that will not be able to meet EPA’s proposed new NAAQS will face increased costs to businesses, restrictions on development and expansion, and limits on transportation funding.  EPA’s new proposed standard could nearly triple the number of nonattainment areas and, under the high end of EPA’s own estimate, add $90 billion dollars per year to already high operating costs faced by  manufacturers, agriculture, and other sectors.  

In addition, recent studies indicate that each affected state could lose tens of thousands of jobs, if not more.  If our local businesses can’t compete, our constituents will lose their jobs, their health care and other employee benefits for their families.  Our communities will also lose local tax revenue critical to funding public education and municipal infrastructure. 

We believe that we can and should continue to improve our environment, but we are concerned that EPA’s action has real, detrimental impacts on the people they are trying to protect.  Given the heavy job loss potential this policy could result in and the absence of any new scientific data, we strongly believe changing the current NAAQS standard outside of the ongoing five year review process is unnecessary.

The Congressmen are following up to some degree on another letter, this one from the Baton Rouge Clean Air Coalition – a consortium of state regulatory agencies, business groups and academicians – which had objected to increased EPA mandates on ozone for several reasons. Among them…

• “We have reviewed EPA’s report and analysis of studies used to support revision of the ozone standard and find the health impact assessments very tenuous. … This information certainly doesn’t provide a strong, irrefutable basis for a decision with the potential impacts of a lower ozone standard.”
• “Louisiana’s ozone problems are minor and the imposition of the new lower ozone standards is unwarranted overreach by EPA”
• “…at the lower end of EPA’s proposed primary ozone standard, every monitoring site in the state would be designated nonattainment.”
• “Increased costs for utilities, fuel, food, consumer goods, etc. that will accompany the implementation of a new, lower ozone standard will likely reduce the standard of living for many and may force families with limited budgets to reduce spending for nutrition and health care.”
• “Each of the parishes designated nonattainment under the proposed standards will have their economic development activities seriously impaired by the stigma of ozone nonattainment. Industries in these parishes will see increased regulatory burdens, more costly emission controls, extensive monitoring and reporting, and more difficult permitting. Communities in these parishes can expect to be subject to auto emissions testing, possible transportation restrictions, and requirements that their transportation plans conform to state ozone attainment plans. Most of the potentially‐affected parishes do not have the financial and human resources to deal with the new federal regulatory burdens.”

The long and short of the new EPA rule will be another significant imposition of cost upon Louisiana’s economy at a time the state simply can’t afford a new rope around its neck. If you’re in a “non-attainment” area, which virtually each of the state’s markets will become should a new standard take effect, industrial permits will be impossible to get. That could wipe out efforts to lure Hawker Beechcraft to Baton Rouge or halt the planned construction of Nucor Steel’s facility in St. James Parish, not to mention any significant upgrades or expansions to refineries or petrochemical plants along the Mississippi.

But that’s not all. Because traffic is a generator of ozone, road projects in “non-attainment” areas will likely be halted. That’s lousy news for the future of Baton Rouge’s infrastructure, and it’s also likely a death knell for the completion of I-49 where it isn’t finished.

And the fact that the EPA’s rules on permitting will require the purchase of “offsets” for emissions merely impose Cap And Trade through regulatory fiat.

The good news here is that the EPA isn’t the only player in the game. In 2008, the Bush administration proposed pushing the .084 ppm standard to .075 ppm, but legal challenges kept that standard from being implemented. The same will likely happen now. And the GOP majority in the House beginning in January will have the ability to rein in the EPA through the power of the purse.

Still, there are those who are pleased with the EPA’s attempts to tighten the noose. The Louisiana Environmental Action Network, a group which has camped out in court on this issue in the past, hails the new standard of .060-.070 ppm.

“We will be thrilled if they get to that number,” said Mary Lee Orr, LEAN executive director. “The citizens will be so happy to have more protective standards for themselves. It’s taken a long time to get here.”

Whether the “citizens” will be happy with the loss of blue-collar jobs in Louisiana industry as a result of efforts to attain an imperceptible reduction in ozone is debatable. But another Usual Suspect in the emissions battle, Tulane’s Environmental Law Clinic, is crowing as well. Said Adam Babitch, a spokesman for the law clinic…

“It should mean cleaner air and fewer health care problems,” Babitch said. “The bottom line is that Baton Rouge has never been in compliance. We have made progress, but it’s a dollar late and day short.”

Baton Rouge, in fact, met EPA standards on ozone in September for the first time since the standards were enacted. Babitch is correct that if the EPA continues to move the goalposts the five-parish area around the Capitol City will remain in noncompliance. Compliance with the national unemployment rate, however, might be more attainable if the industrial sector is subjected to harsher regulation.

Moratorium Killing Jobs In Louisiana And Beyond
Cassidy: “Now, a couple a things here: there is the outer continental shelf moratorium and the shallow water moratorium. The administration’s numbers for outer continental shelf is 12,000 jobs lost and 1.8 billion dollars of lost economic activity on the Gulf Coast.  Now, I can tell you that I’m also told that say, the Caterpillar plant in Illinois, which is no longer selling million dollar motors to put on rigs, has also lost…the ripple effects, the steel workers in the Midwest.”

De Facto Moratorium Taking Toll On Louisiana Workers
Cassidy: “So, the other thing I’ve heard is that the shallow water rigs, which have been shut down, have laid off.  That’s not included in the 12,000. There’s an article in the Wall Street Journal  a week ago, a guy named Joe Gonzales from Houston, had declared bankruptcy once, got a job on a shallow water rig and now he’s laid off again and now may have to declare bankruptcy again. So the shallow water effect is not included in the 12,000, probably a little bit bigger than that 12,000.”

American Energy Security At Risk
Cassidy: “But what we do know is that it’s going to impact long-term energy output.  There’s an agency in the federal government that just looks at energy production.  They say that there’s going to be 5,000 barrels per day less production in the Gulf of Mexico because of the moratorium.”

Warning Signs For Louisiana Economy
Cassidy: “Loren Scott said recently that with oil prices this high, the fact that Houma and Lafayette are not growing is a bad sign.  I speak to my friends who sell service or work in Lafayette or work in Lafayette or Houma, they say they’ve never seen Cajuns so pessimistic.  So, in our own state, we have to know that ultimately a vibrant boat building, vibrant rig building, vibrant service industry and OCS drilling industry is going to be vital to our future.”

“They’re Not Hurting Tony Heyward; They’re Hurting The Working Family In South Louisiana”
Cassidy: “But keep in mind this is not just the big boys here.  I often thought in congress people thought they were hurting Tony Heyward, but they’re not hurting Tony Heyward; they’re hurting the working family in South Louisiana who are depending on that check for their mortgage and their car payments.”

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, is demanding answers, seeking hearings on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) permitting process for shallow water drilling when Congress returns for a lame duck session beginning November 15.

Cassidy says local energy companies report BOEM has issued only seven permits for their shallow water drilling since the administration claims to have resumed the permitting process on May 28. 

While a quarter of the shallow water exploration fleet sits idle in Louisiana and Texas ports and the crews of those vessels draw unemployment checks, the administration denies they’re stopping drilling.

Meanwhile, the feds estimate that new rules promulgated by the Department of the Interior will cost some $184 million per year to implement, a figure which is sure to be contested by independent analysis based on the government’s questionable number-crunching to date. In that estimate is a projection of $90,000 in increased costs for shallow-water drilling – a number no one believes.

“All of this is going to put the producers in a situation where they are going to have to take a hard look at operating in the Gulf,” said Dan Naatz, a vice president with the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “It’s certainly going to make it harder, in this uncertain environment,” for companies to make decisions about investments in offshore drilling projects. “You could have a very serious impact on small producers.”

The oil and gas industry is committed to safety, Naatz added, but “the agency itself acknowledges they’re not sure what the actual benefits of this will be.”

Cassidy’s request for House Natural Resources committee hearings reads as follows:

Dear Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings:

I write to request that the Natural Resources Committee hold hearings to examine the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) permitting process for offshore oil and gas drilling when the House reconvenes in November. 

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, shallow water permitting resumed on May 28, 2010.  Since then, I have heard conflicting accounts from offshore drilling operators and the Obama Administration about the progress – or lack thereof – of shallow water permitting and approval. 

Drilling operators report that since the moratorium on shallow water drilling was lifted, BOEM has only issued 7 permits for new shallow water wells.  Dozens of exploration and development plans, each covering multiple potential wells, are also awaiting approval from the agency.  As a result of this slowdown, 11 jackup rigs have been idled in the Gulf of Mexico, representing one quarter of the shallow water fleet.  Absent immediate action, the lack of permits for new wells could put 30 or more of the total 45 available rigs idle by the end of November.  The oil and gas industry is concerned that a de facto moratorium on shallow water permitting is in effect.

BOEM Director Michael Bromwich has defended the work of the agency, maintaining that no moratorium exists on shallow water activity, while noting that “we are not able to review and approve applications as expeditiously as we have in the past.”  He has stated that the lengthier permitting process of recent months reflects a necessary effort to require rig operators to prove that they are meeting improved safety procedures to prevent another major spill.

An independent analysis by the Associated Press found that “energy exploration in the Gulf’s shallow waters has come to a virtual standstill as drillers grapple with tougher federal rules since the spill. … The pace at which regulators grant drilling permits in water less than 500 feet deep has slowed sharply this summer… Just four out of 10 shallow-water drilling applications have been approved from June through August; 15 applications were sought and approved in the same period last year.”

These conflicting accounts merit consideration by the Natural Resources Committee, which can and should ensure that BOEM has the resources, focus, and sense of urgency to return to an active permitting process for Gulf energy production.  America’s energy security and tens of thousands of Gulf Coast jobs depend on it.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

President Barack Obama again talked about small businesses last week. “Government can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession,” the president said at the White House, “but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks.”

He’s right. But it is hard to reconcile the president’s statement with the record of his administration, which has clearly not helped “create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people.” It’s even harder when considering Obama’s insistence on higher tax rates for small businesses beginning Jan. 1.

At the risk of stating the obvious: No one is getting a tax cut — regardless of whether tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003 continues or expires. If they expire, tax rates are due to rise on Jan. 1. If they continue, rates remain the same. So the question isn’t whether to lower tax rates for this or that income bracket. It’s whether to raise taxes and on whom.

The president favors keeping tax rates the same for individuals who earn up to $200,000 and couples who make up to $250,000 and raising taxes for everyone else. He argues that Republicans, who oppose raising anyone’s taxes, are “holding middle-class tax cuts hostage” to benefit “the rich.”

As it is, raising taxes on “the rich” inescapably means raising taxes on small businesses — which is to say on job creators.

In a membership survey, the National Federation of Independent Business, the leading small-business advocacy organization, found that “75 percent of small businesses are organized as pass-through entities (sole proprietors, partnerships, S corporations, etc.) — meaning they pay taxes on their business income based on the individual tax rates.”

Small businesses are the U.S. economy’s leading driver of job creation, responsible for two-thirds of all new jobs in the past decade. Taxes, like the cost of raw materials or equipment, compete with the cost of labor within a firm’s budget. When taxes rise, fewer dollars are available to invest in other priorities, like hiring more workers.

With demand down for goods and services in this recession, a higher tax burden would only further reduce the capital these small businesses need to expand and hire more workers.

This is why 31 House Democrats recently announced their opposition to the president’s plan to raise taxes in a public letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“We have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small-business owners and families who have voiced concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth,” they wrote to the speaker. “Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of recovery, we share their concerns. … We urge quick passage of legislation to extend the tax cuts so that American families and businesses have the certainty required to plan and make informed decisions. The sooner we act, the sooner our nation’s economy will benefit.”

A big part of their argument is to give businesses “the certainty required to plan and make informed decisions.”

Businesses are forward looking. They budget; they plan. They incorporate projected tax burdens into their budgets and plans. The threat of higher taxes tomorrow is enough to stifle hiring and investment today.

Last Wednesday, 39 House Democrats joined with every Republican in voting to stay in session, end the uncertainty and block this impending tax increase.

The president should follow their lead and do as he says: “Create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people.”

Rep. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana serves as an assistant whip for the House Republican Conference and as a member of the Republican Study Committee.

• Any talk about David Vitter’s vulnerability in a primary or general election is just that – talk. He received a whopping 88% of the vote against two primary opponents (one of whom, Chet Traylor, initially got plenty of favorable press time to promote his candidacy), with at least 66% of the vote in each parish.
• If anything, Charlie Melancon ought to be more concerned. His two opponents were even less known to Democratic/Independent voters than Vitter’s opponents,  yet he only received 71% of the vote. More revealing is the distribution of that vote – while his highest percentages were in parishes with a large black population and/or his own Congressional district, his performance in several rural parishes was downright embarrassing. In fact, in five rural north Louisiana parishes, he received less than 50% of the vote.

Melancon Vote By Parish

• Republican enthusiasm was present at the polls today, just like it was for early voting. Though only 26% of the voters are registered Republican, Republican turnout was 2.5 times that of Democratic/Independent turnout (Independents can only vote in Democratic primaries), which resulted in 47% of the vote being cast in the Republican primary.
• Congressional primaries, with one major exception, were uneventful. Five Republican Congressmen (Steve Scalise of Metairie, “Joseph” Cao of New Orleans, John Fleming of Minden, Bill Cassidy of Baton Rouge, and Charles Boustany of Lafayette) received no primary opposition. Six year incumbent Rodney Alexander dispatched his primary opponent with 89% of the vote (he received at least 79% of the vote in each parish), which is identical to the 90% of the vote he received in the Republican primary two years ago.
• On the Democratic side, both contested primaries ended up being settled tonight. In New Orleans, state representative Cedric Richmond won his primary with 60% of the vote against three opponents – it didn’t hurt that he had the Landrieu endorsement. Up in northwest Louisiana, Methodist minister David Melville won his primary with 81% of the vote.
• (UPDATED 8/31 AM) The one primary which was bitterly contested, and will go into a runoff, was the Republican primary for Charlie Melancon’s vacated House seat, which stretches from Chalmette to New Iberia as far north as Gonzales. Former House Speaker (and former Democrat) Hunt Downer started off the heavy favorite, but made a critical error near the end of the campaign: he backed out of a candidate debate sponsored by the Baton Rouge Tea Party – to attend a fundraiser. This cancellation enraged Tea Party activists, who immediately began blasting Downer for this, for his legislative voting record, and the fact that he had served in the (Democratic) Blanco administration. While attorney Jeff Landry benefitted from this “establishment vs insurgent” matchup, engineer Kristian Magar also made a respectable showing, with a considerable assist from Tea Party activists through energetic use of social networking sites like Facebook.  In the end, Landry received 49.6% of the vote, compared to 36% for Downer and 14% for Magar. Will there be a runoff ? In addition to the fact that Landry was about 100 votes short of winning outright, the distribution of the vote should give Downer pause while he ponders whether it is worth the time and expense to contest the runoff. Basically, Downer was a “one parish candidate” –though he carried his home parish of Terrebonne with a very respectable 64% of the vote (versus Landry’s 26% and Magar’s 10%), he lost every other parish to Landry. In fact, outside of Terrebonne, 59% of the Republican vote went to Landry, while Downer received 25% and Magar received 16% - it’s important to note that both Landry and Magar shared an Iberia Parish voting base. Curiously, the absentee vote (which made up 17% of the total) went 52-40% for Landry, while those who voted on Election day gave Landry 49%, Downer 35%, and Magar 16%.

(UPDATED 8/31 AM) In addition to the Republican runoff for the 3^rd Congressional district, the “everything else” primary is in five weeks on Saturday, October 2. While the Lieutenant Governor’s race at the top of the ticket, there is also a myriad of judgeship races and municipal/school board races. The deadline to register to vote in this election is Wednesday, September 1. Early voting will be from September 18 to 25, and the deadline to mail in a ballot (that is, if the voter will be unable to make it to the polls on Election Day) is Friday, October 1.

Finally, West Virginia is having a special election this November to fill the seat of the late senator Robert Byrd. The primry to choose party nominees was held tonight, but was relatively uneventful. Governor Joe Manchin received 73% of the Democratic primary vote, while mining company owner John Raese (who has run several times before statewide and lost) received 71% of the vote in the Republican primary.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

(1) We expect that the Congressional primaries will be a low turnout affair, based on the early voting volume. Now that mail in ballots have been cast, 28203 early votes have been cast. We project that in the end, there will be an estimated 6-19% overall turnout. To put this figure in perspective, in the moderate turnout 2007 Governor’s primary, 139400 early voted. And in the high turnout 2008 Presidential race, 283500 early voted;

(2) While there are contested Democratic and Republican primaries statewide for the Senate and in four Congressional districts, Republican enthusiasm was higher than the Democrats/Independents (Independents can vote in Democratic primaries). In a state where Democrats and Independents outnumber registered Republicans 2.9 to 1, 3.35 Republicans showed up for every Democrat/Independent who did. Overall, 54% of the early vote was cast by Republicans, 42% by Democrats, and 4% by Independents. This level of GOP enthusiasm is unprecedented., although it is worth noting there was a “Democratic surge” from the mail in ballots: 60% of the mail ins were from Democrats, compared to 36% from Republicans. And 32% of the mail ins were from black voters.  Overall, in 42 parishes, more Republicans physically showed up, with especially strong Republican early voting turnout, percentage-wise, in Lafourche, St Martin, St Tammany, and Terrebonne;

(3) Curiously, a significant number (26%) of the early ballots cast were mail in ballots, while 74% early voted in person. For comparison’s sake, in 2007 and 2008, 95% voted in person and 5% mailed in their ballot;

(4) To put the Republican early voting enthusiasm (i.e., the 54-42% lead) in perspective, in the 2007 Governor’s race, Democrats led 52-36% in early voting, while in the 2008 Presidential race, Democrats led 58-29%;

(5) To what extent are Congressional primaries driving this turnout ? For the Democrats, not very much, while for the Republicans, it has helped quite a bit. While the Senate primaries are at the top of the ballot, there are also four contested House primaries. Democrats are holding Congressional primaries in the 2nd Congressional District (most of New Orleans and the Westbank) and 4th Congressional District (northwest Louisiana). Republican primaries are in the 3rd Congressional District (“Bayou country” between New Iberia and St Bernard Parish) and 5th Congressional District (northeast and central Louisiana). When we looked at the parishes where Democratic Congressional primaries are being held, we noticed that 0.6% of Democrats/Independents early voted, which equals the statewide average. If we look at the parishes where Republican Congressional primaries are being held, we find that 3.2% have early voted, compared to a statewide average of 2.0%. In other words, even with a hotly contested Democratic primary in New Orleans, Republicans are more enthusiastic about their House candidates where there are serously contested races, with the three way Republican primary in the 3rd district between Hunt Downwer, Kristian Magar, and Jeff Landry being the biggest attention getter – in fact, 3.6% of Republicans have already cast a ballot before polls have even opened. To put this number in perspective, we think that 13-20% of the GOP vote in that district has already been cast.

Finally, it’s worth repeating again that we are making somewhat of a big deal about the early vote volume, because when the Legislature essentially established “no fault” early voting several years ago, more and more people have chosen to early vote, so a constituency of 5-15% of the total vote is something a politician would be foolish to ignore – especially in a closely contested race. These early voting numbers are the ones that are typically reported on the TV screen several minutes after polls close at 8 PM. 

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

In  Florida, the Senate race that we’ve anticipated for some time (a three way race between former House Speaker Marco Rubio, black Miami Congressman Kendrick Meek, and Governor Charlie Crist) is now official. Though Meek received spirited competition from billionaire Jeff Greene, numerous aspects about Greene’s background left him vulnerable to attack ads. His financial dealings left him vulnerable to the attack that he “bet on and benefitted from the housing collapse” His yacht was also the subject of considerable scrutiny. At one point, Greene was alleged to have used it to travel to Cuba in defiance of the travel ban (thus offending Cuban Democrats in Miami). There were also allegations of the yacht’s anchor being dropped onto a  UN recognized, environmentally protected coral reef and destroying it. Though outspent, Meek had the support of former President Clinton and (officially, at least) President Obama, and easily won the Democratic Senate primary 57-31%.

Despite the viciousness of this primary, we believe (as we mentioned several months ago in this post ) that having a Democratic nominee selected will start the process of Democrats’ migrating back to their candidate. This predicted Democratic migration will cause the independent candidacy of Governor Charlie Crist to collapse. Right now, his electoral position is deceptively strong because of his having a considerable amount of white and black Democratic support. Without that support, he has nowhere to go electorally, since the GOP vote has been locked up by Rubio for some time now.

Florida Republicans had their own vicious primary campaign, although in this case, healthcare executive and multimillionaire Rick Scott (whose campaign tagline is “let’s get to work”) narrowly defeated Republican establishment favorite, Attorney General and 10 term former Congressman Bill McCollum by a 46-43% margin in the GOP primary for Governor. In this race, the controversy was that Scott’s former company (Columbia/HCA) had to pay the federal government a sizeable $1.7 billion dollars in fines for Medicare and Medicaid fraud.  While the Governor’s race has been set, the likely outcome is up in the air at this point because, like the Senate race, there will be a three way race between Scott, Democratic CFO (which is a statewide elected position in Florida) Alex Sink, and Independent “Bud” Chiles, whose father was Senator then Governor for nearly three decades. The big question about this race is whether the Republicans can unite behind their nominee like the Democrats have with theirs.

One House race we were watching in Florida for strength of liberal anger was a Democratic House primary in north Florida, in a district that is a mixture of rural counties, conservative beach areas, and liberal Tallahassee. Though this district voted 55% for John McCain, it re-elected Blue Dog Allen Boyd for 14 years with little fuss. However, Tallahassee liberals have been unhappy with his voting record for some time (despite the fact that Rep Boyd voted for “cap and trade” and for healthcare reform), and black state senator Al Lawson challenged him in the primary. Though Rep Boyd outspent Sen. Lawson 11 to 1, he narrowly survived the primary with 52% to Lawson’s 48%. He can’t rest easy, though - the Republicans are putting up a stiff challenge to Rep Boyd in November.

We have been tracking the level of GOP enthusiasm in contested statewide primaries, and Florida was yet another state where there was more enthusiasm on the GOP side of the primary ballot; in this case, 58% of its voters voted in the Republican primary, despite the fact that Democrats lead 41-36% in voter registration.

(UPDATED 8/25 AM) In Arizona, the main story is that despite a stiff challenge from the right by former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, John McCain comfortably won his primary 56-32%. In our view, McCain was only vulnerable in theory, as his voting record (as well as his public statements) took an unambiguous turn to the right after President Obama was inaugurated. Senator McCain was also able to gain additional traction by noting Hayworth’s connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Most damaging, in our opinion, was an infomercial Hayworth once did promoting “free money” from the government, because anything smacking of bailouts is extremely unpopular with Republican primary voters this year, and that association is especially damning for conservative candidates.

Like Florida, Arizona was another state where voter enthusiasm was clearly on the Republican side. In this case, 67% of primary voters voted in the Republican primary, despite a narrow 36-32% Republican registration advantage in the state.

(UPDATED 8/25 AM) A final note on Arizona: the state’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, was universally given up for dead last year when she increased taxes. Her standing up to the federal government on immigration, however, brought her back to life with a vengeance earlier this year and made her somewhat of a rock star in conservative circles. And, accordingly, she won her primary with 87% of the vote against two opponents.

(UPDATED 9/4) In Alaska, a third Senate (and a seventh Congressional) incumbent has been defeated in the primary. With only a handful of absentees to be counted, freshman Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski trailed in the Republican primary 49-51% against attorney Joe Miller, who was endorsed by Tea Partiers and by Sarah Palin. Senator Murkowski has always had electoral problems ever since her father, whose seat she filled when he was elected governor in 2002, appointed her to his seat. Since then, her pork barrel tendencies and her pro choice stance on abortion have upset many Republicans.

(UPDATED 8/25 AM) Like Florida and Arizona, Alaska was yet another state where voter enthusiasm was clearly on the Republican side. In this case, 70% of primary voters voted in the Republican primary, despite a narrow 26-15% Republican registration advantage in the state.

Once Alaska’s primary has concluded, we will be in the home stretch of primary season, as 41 states have now held their primaries. Primary season finally comes to Louisiana this Saturday, as it chooses party nominees for U.S. House and U.S. Senate races. This will be a closed primary, meaning that (1) only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, (2) Democrats or Independents can vote in the Democratic primary,  and (3) if any candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, he/she will have to compete in a runoff on October 2. This election date coincides with various statewide and local primary races.

Also holding elections this Saturday will be West Virginia. It is conducting a special primary to fill the seat of the late Robert Byrd. The winners will face each other in the November general election. After the weekend primaries, there will be a plethora of primaries on Tuesday September 14, which we are dubbing “Super Tuesday II.” On that date, there will be contested primaries in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. After “Super Tuesday II”, the last Congressional primary to be held will be in Hawaii on Saturday September 18.

 John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

(1) We expect that the Congressional primaries will be a low turnout affair, based on the early voting volume. Overall, 26214 early votes have been cast. We project that in the end, there will be (because of mail in ballots not yet sent in/tabulated) an early voting volume of 26700. This equates to an estimated 6-18% overall turnout. To put this figure in perspective, in the moderate turnout 2007 Governor’s primary, 139400 early voted. And in the high turnout 2008 Presidential race, 283500 early voted;

(2) While there are contested Democratic and Republican primaries statewide for the Senate and in four Congressional districts, Republican enthusiasm has consistently been higher than the Democrats/Independents (Independents can vote in Democratic primaries). In a state where Democrats and Independents outnumber registered Republicans 2.9 to 1, 3.6 Republicans yesterday have shown up so far for every Democrat/Independent who did. Overall, 55% of the early vote was cast by Republicans, 40% by Democrats, and 4% by Independents. This level of GOP enthusiasm is unprecedented. Overall, in 44 parishes, more Republicans physically showed up, with especially strong Republican early voting turnout, percentage-wise, in Iberia, Lafourche, St Martin, St Tammany, and Terrebonne;

Absentee vote by parish

(3) Curiously, a significant number (20%) of the early ballots cast were mail in ballots, while 80% early voted in person. For comparison’s sake, in 2007 and 2008, 95% voted in person and 5% mailed in their ballot;

(4) To put the Republican early voting enthusiasm (i.e., the 55-40% lead) in perspective, in the 2007 Governor’s race, Democrats led 52-36% in early voting, while in the 2008 Presidential race, Democrats led 58-29%;

(5) To what extent are Congressional primaries driving this turnout ? For the Democrats, not at all, while for the Republicans, it has helped quite a bit. While the Senate primaries are at the top of the ballot, there are also four contested House primaries. Democrats are holding Congressional primaries in the 2nd Congressional District (most of New Orleans and the Westbank) and 4th Congressional District (northwest Louisiana). Republican primaries are in the 3rd Congressional District (“Bayou country” between New Iberia and St Bernard Parish) and 5th Congressional District (northeast and central Louisiana). When we looked at the parishes where Democratic Congressional primaries are being held, we noticed that 0.5% of Democrats/Independents early voted, which equals the statewide average. If we look at the parishes where Republican Congressional primaries are being held, we find that 2.9% have early voted, compared to a statewide average of 1.9%. In other words, even with a hotly contested Democratic primary in New Orleans, Republicans are even more enthusiastic about their House candidates where there are serously contested races, with the three way Republican primary in the 3rd district between Hunt Downwer, Kristian Magar, and Jeff Landry being the biggest attention getter.

Finally, it’s worth repeating again that we are making somewhat of a big deal about the early vote volume, because when the Legislature essentially established “no fault” early voting several years ago, more and more people have chosen to early vote, so a constituency of 5-15% of the total vote is something a politician would be foolish to ignore – especially in a closely contested race. These early voting numbers are the ones that are typically reported on the TV screen several minutes after polls close at 8 PM.

As a final note, we have attached the partisan composition of the absentee vote in the October 2007 primary and the 2008 general election so you can see how significant the GOP early voting has been for the Congressional primary;

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.