Campaign 2010

Jun 03, 2004


Democrats Rejoice Over South Dakota Win
Washington Post - June 2, 2004

A narrow victory in yesterday’s congressional race in Republican-leaning South Dakota has Democrats talking of something that seemed unthinkable six months ago: The possibility of regaining the House majority this fall after a decade in the minority.

Even the most optimistic Democrats agree it’s an uphill fight, but Stephanie Herseth’s win in the special election lends credence to party claims that it can grab former GOP seats in districts easily carried by President Bush if it runs smart, strong candidates. Democratic leaders said today they have several such campaigns underway nationwide.

Gaining the House majority Nov. 2 “is more than possible,” said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “I think we have a very good shot at it.”

Republicans scoffed at the idea, noting they still hold a dozen-seat cushion and are well-positioned to knock off several Democrats in Texas alone. Still, GOP leaders seemed on the defensive today, having to explain away their second special-election loss within four months in a district previously held by a Republican.

Interesting development on that Texas business today (I love how they brag about that crooked garbage, I wonder if they’ll stop if DeLay goes to jail for it):

The U.S. Supreme Court has told Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to respond by June 28 to Democratic claims that the Republican-dominated Legislature had no compelling governmental reason to redraw congressional lines last year.


It was unclear Tuesday whether the request indicates that the Supreme Court might hear arguments in the Texas redistricting appeals.


In a Pennsylvania case decided by the high court earlier this year, most judges agreed that purely partisan justification for redrawing lines doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement that there be a legitimate governmental purpose for mid-decade redistricting.

They let that state’s GOP-driven lines stand, though, with four justices saying a clear line could never be drawn separating decisions meant to favor one party from those that incidentally favor that party. A fifth judge in the 5-4 decision also noted that Pennsylvania, unlike Texas, did not have any lines in place other than the ones drawn after the 1990 census.

Want the latest updates? Follow the DCCC on Facebook and Twitter: