State Report WY 2: Wyoming Report # 2

Wyoming Report # 2

by Keith Carlsen

(With additional research and editing by a half-dozen other Free State Project members)

Disclaimer: This report covers many of the political aspects of Wyoming in detail but, it does not cover all areas because it is intended as a supplement to the 1st and 3rd Wyoming Reports. However, since it was written at the same time as the 3rd Report, there is some overlap. The author of this report has put over 400 hours of research and thought into the question of which candidate state is best for the Free State Project. The author is from a large eastern metropolitan center (Memphis, TN) and originally opted-out of every state west of the Mississippi, but has since developed a bias towards Wyoming and opted-back-in every state except North Dakota.

Major Areas Covered

Ability to Succeed Government and Taxes Guns, Laws, and Resistance to the Federal Government Groups That Could Work Against Freedom Miscellaneous Factors Conclusion

---

I. Ability to Succeed

There are currently 10 states under consideration by the FSP. These are (alphabetically):

Alaska (AK), Delaware (DE), Idaho (ID), Maine (ME), Montana (MT), New Hampshire (NH), North Dakota (ND), South Dakota (SD), Vermont (VT), and Wyoming (WY).

Several critical factors combine in Wyoming, to make it one of the most likely states to succeed. These factors are:

1. Overall population
2. Number of voters
3. Expense of elections
4. Political climate
5. Citizen ideology
6. Cost of living

The first five factors are some of the most important factors for determining which candidate state should prevail, while the last factor is the trump card.

Wyoming is the only state where these six factors combine in such an FSP-friendly way. Look at the data for yourself:

1. Overall population for selected states

   WY	498,703	Best of all 10 states
   SD	761,063
   MT	909,453
   NH	1,275,056
   ID	1,341,131	Worst of all 10 states

2. Number of voters (in 2000 election) for selected states

   WY	213,000	Best of all 10 states
   SD	316,000
   MT	411,000
   ID	488,000
   NH	567,000	Worst of all 10 states

3. Expense of elections (highest recent election) for selected states

   ND	$4,300,000	Best of all 10 states
   WY	$4,700,000	3rd of all 10 states
   ID	$7,700,000
   MT	$10,900,000
   SD	$18,800,000
   NH	$19,600,000	Worst of all 10 states

4. Political climate (% small government vote for President in 2000) for selected states

   WY	70.0%	Best of all 10 states
   ID	68.0%
   SD	61.0%
   MT	59.0%
   NH	48.5%
   DE	42.0%
   VT	41.5%	Worst of all 10 states

5. Citizen ideology towards small government principles

   ID	73.7	Best of all 10 states
   AK	66.9
   WY	66.1	3rd of all 10 states
   NH	63.7
   MT	56.9
   SD	53.2
   DE	47.9
   ND	45.3
   ME	35.5
   VT	25.8	Worst of all 10 states

   Interpretations: Out of the five factors most critical to the success of the Free State Project, Wyoming is the best state three times and the third state two times. Idaho is the worst state once, and both New Hampshire and Vermont are each ranked the worst state two times. According to the five most important factors, no other state is even in the same ballpark as Wyoming. Wyoming has around one-half the population, voters, and expense of elections as compared to the large states and is much more small-government friendly than all of the small states (except Alaska). In this regard, Wyoming has the best of both worlds.

   Source: All of the statistics come from Jason's spreadsheet.

6. Cost of living

   What about the trump card – cost of living?

   Having a high cost of living hurts a state. The reason? Not everyone who wants to help the FSP will be able to move to the chosen state. Some people will have to take care of their elderly parents; others might not be able to move because the cold exacerbates the arthritis in their knees or they are divorced and want to be near their children; some people might think that they are making progress towards liberty in warm, dry, and sunny New Mexico. There are many other possible reasons. However, these folks might still be willing to help the FSP's chosen state out, financially. Should the FSP just give up on these people? NO! We should encourage them to help us out the only way they can, by financially supporting the various freedom projects that will be going on in the chosen state.

   Right about now, you maybe saying, "That does make sense, let them help us. However, what does that have to do with cost of living?" Simply this: money goes further in a state with a low mean household income than in a state with a high mean household income. The people that choose to stay in New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, Las Vegas, Miami, or Atlanta and make $100,000 per year, are likely to give the same amount of money to the freedom movements of the chosen state no matter which state is picked. That money will go much further in a state like Wyoming where the cost of living is low, than it will in New Hampshire or Alaska where the cost of living is very high. It is not a coincidence that Wyoming and North Dakota have lower costs of living than New Hampshire and Vermont do. Wyoming's cost of living is around 93% of the national average, which compares very favorably to 103% for Delaware, 108% for New Hampshire, and 123% for Anchorage AK.

   Housing costs must also be considered as part of this equation. If a family owns 50% of a house that costs $300,000 in California and sells that house, they will have around $150,000 to buy a new house in the chosen state. Now, would that $150,000 buy a better house and more land in a state like Wyoming with low housing and land costs, or in a state like New Hampshire with high housing and land costs? The answer is clear: the family benefits more by moving to Wyoming than it does by moving to New Hampshire.

   What about the opposite? For example, if an average family from Alabama or Oklahoma wants to move to the chosen state and owns 25% of their $100,000 house, this money goes further in the low housing cost environment of Wyoming than in the high housing cost environment of New Hampshire. It might be so hard for the family to get a house in New Hampshire they are forced to live in a low-quality apartment. I know this is not the end of the world (I currently live in an apartment) but it is still an issue for that family.

   Wyoming does not have a low average household income, either. Wyoming's average household income is only around $1,000 below the national average, or $38,000. However, after Wyoming's average household income is adjusted for cost of living, it is slightly higher than the national average. Four of the other candidate states have higher mean household incomes than Wyoming while five have lower ones. This puts Wyoming about in the middle. If you want to take this strategy to the extreme, Montana is lowest with an average household income of $33,000. However, in my opinion, that is too low. Wyoming, on the other hand is just around the national average. This is good, because this means the money coming to Wyoming will be worth more in the local economy than the money would be in Alaska or New Hampshire, but at the same time the people from Wyoming will be able to afford to buy out-of-state products and travel out of state.

Alternative theory on ability to succeed – Robert Hawes, a fellow Porcupine posted an alternative list of major factors for success to the FSP Forum. He goes about it a different way but still picks Wyoming as the top candidate state.

Population, again – Let me go back to the most important factor: population. This is the most important factor because we have to assume that none of the states are as liberty and small government oriented as the FSP members are, otherwise the FSP would have never been created. The candidate states have been chosen based on one main factor, population. Lots of Jason's original research dealt with the Parti Quebecois of Quebec, Canada. Jason, the founder and President of the Free State Project, described how the PQ had 100,000 paying members in a Canadian province with around 6,200,000 residents when it gained a parliamentary majority in 1976. This makes one PQ activist for every 62 Quebec residents. The FSP would need 20,000 activists in a state with fewer than 1,200,000 residents to attempt to duplicate the PQ's success. If you never read Jason's article or want to read it again, you can find it here.

How do the candidate states measure up to this important barrier?

State	Population (2002)	Pop. Divided by 20K Activists
WY	498,703	24.9
VT	616,592	30.8
ND	634,110	31.7
AK	643,786	32.1
SD	761,063	38.0
DE	807,385	40.3
MT	909,453	45.4
NH	1,275,056	63.7*
ME	1,294,464	64.7*
ID	1,341,131	67.0*

* Over the limit of 62

Jason has speculated that if the FSP does not get 20,000 members the project will fold and a new, looser-organized project will take its place and probably decide to move to a small state like Wyoming. If people move to the selected state before the project has 20,000 members, this might be a disaster for the FSP. These people will be unlikely to move again; after all, they just spent thousands of dollars to move to the chosen state. This means the FSP members will be split between the chosen state and Wyoming and neither group will succeed. The other possibility is that most people will decide to move to the chosen state anyway, and the project will fail because it will lack enough members to make changes in the chosen state. If Wyoming is not picked, then the project might not even get off the ground. However, if Wyoming is picked and 20,000 members do not sign up, Wyoming will still be the back-up state when Jason shuts down the project. This means that people can move early to Wyoming and not have to worry about moving again, or inadvertently splitting the project, unlike all of the other states.

I have studied the data and talked with people that have lived or currently live in the states. There is nothing that makes the more populous states such as New Hampshire and Idaho two and one-half to three times as good as Wyoming. Given these numbers, the real question seems to be, why should we not pick Wyoming, as opposed to why should we pick a more populous state?

What if a large amount of people drop out of the project in a few years? The project will be doomed in a large-population state like Idaho, but it will likely still succeed in Wyoming. A quote on the FSP Forum, by a fellow Porcupine, says, "After we finally make the vote, chances are a good chunk of us will bow out; estimates on the initial loss of membership range from 10% to 25%. This will happen regardless of which state is chosen." It just makes sense to err on the safe side. Remember, this is our future and the future of our dream – freedom. If we bite off more than we can chew, this unique opportunity for "freedom in our lifetime" might be forever lost. We must start small and work from there. We should not fool around with freedom and pick a state because it has a beach, a casino resort, or a Chinese restaurant in every town! Sure, these are factors that deserve a small amount of consideration, but they are not as important as freedom.

II. Government and Taxes

• General

  The Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian Party are the only major political parties in Wyoming. Wyoming, unlike six other candidate states (including Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Idaho) actually has term limits for its legislature. Wyoming has a ballot initiative process, unlike New Hampshire, but it is regulated more than it should be.

• District Sizes

  Wyoming's House has 60 members: 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats, each representing around 8,200 residents. This compares favorably to most states, including Montana, South Dakota, Alaska, and especially Idaho, which has huge districts consisting of over 36,500 residents per district. New Hampshire has some districts with over 21,000 residents but also has some very small districts. This means the 400 members of the New Hampshire House have much less influence than the 60 members of the Wyoming House.

  House District Sizes
  (2000 figures)

  State	House District Size	Reps
  VT	4,059 to 8,118	150
  WY	8,230	60
  ME	8,443	151
  MT	9,022	100
  SD	10,783	70
  ND	13,106	98
  AK	15,673	40
  DE	19,112	41
  NH	3,089 to 21,559	400
  ID	36,962	70

  Source: Joe Swyers

  The Wyoming Senate has 30 members with a party breakdown of 20 Republicans and 10 Democrats, each representing around 16,500 residents. This compares very favorably to most states. For example, Montana has 18,189, Alaska has 32,189, Maine has over 36,500, Idaho has over 38,300, Delaware has over 38,400, and New Hampshire has over 53,000 residents per Senate district.

  Senate District Sizes (rounded)
  (2002 figures)

  State	Senate District Size
  ND	13,500
  WY	16,500
  MT	18,100
  VT	20,500
  SD	21,700
  AK	32,100	Only 20 Senators
  ME	36,500
  ID	38,300
  DE	38,400
  NH	53,000	Only 24 Senators

  When both House and Senate district sizes are considered, Wyoming is about equal to Vermont for small district sizes. When you consider Wyoming has term limits and a ballot initiative process, it moves even farther ahead of the pack. Wyoming is clearly one of the easiest states to access as far as state legislative assembly is considered. When all four factors are considered, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Idaho stand out as being the hardest to access as far as state legislative assembly is considered. These states are hindered by not having term limits, and New Hampshire does not even have a ballot initiative process.

• State Deficit

  Wyoming is one of the few states in the country with no deficit. Wyoming had a surplus in 2002 and has a reserve fund. On the other hand, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and South Dakota have growing debts. This has caused some parts of Alaska to start collecting a general sales tax and a growing fight in New Hampshire between groups that want to raise the income tax and groups that want to raise the property tax. This issue is important because the residents of a state will be much less likely to lower taxes (like the FSP wants) if the state is experiencing a growing budget shortfall.

  State Budget Deficits ($Millions)

  State	2003 Deficit (Projected)	2002 Deficit
  WY	0.0	0.0
  ND	7.6	7.4
  SD	36.1	19.6
  VT	38.0	67.1
  DE	41.8	0.0
  NH	54.6	19.7
  ID	75.0	221.0
  MT	118.0	0.0
  ME	243.0	150.8
  AK	842.7	777.4

  [Source]

• Taxes

  What about the overall tax issues? Wyoming is already one of the most appealing states in the nation for tax purposes. Only three of the candidate states have no personal income taxes, and Wyoming is one of them. Only one of the candidate states has absolutely no corporate income tax, Wyoming is that state. Wyoming's property tax rates are about half of the national average. Even the sales taxes are low in Wyoming, but many Wyoming sales taxes can be avoided by using planned purchasing strategies. Much of Wyoming is only two to three hours away from Billings or Bozeman MT where there is no general sales tax. In Wyoming, many people routinely barter for goods and services. Usually these barter activities go unreported to the IRS. In addition, most goods may be bought over the internet or second hand and are not subject to sales taxes.

  Here are rankings for the major tax rates:

  Income Tax

  WY, AK, SD	None
  NH, ND	Low
  DE, MT, ID	Average
  VT, ME	Very High

  Sales Tax

  MT, DE, NH, AK	Very Low
  ID, VT, ME, WY, SD	Low
  ND	Average

  Corp. Income Tax

  WY	None
  SD, MT	Low
  AK, ID	Average
  ME, DE, ND, NH*, VT	High

  * NH also has a Business Enterprise tax

  Property Tax

  WY	DE	ID	MT	AK	SD	VT	ME	NH
  Best								Worst

  (I am not sure if I am using the best source for this table. However, I am certain that WY has the lowest and NH the highest). No info for ND.

• Other tax issues

  States typically get most of their revenue from personal income, corporate income, sales, and property taxes. However, some states do not even tax one or two of these categories. The states that limit the types of taxes they impose on their citizens deserve extra recognition from FSP members. Tax cutting strategists and theorists have long recognized certain principles that are common to most state governments. One of the commonly recognized principles notes that all tax rates generally increase over time. Because of this, anti-tax groups tend to think that limiting the types of taxes is the best way to control government growth.

  Wyoming stands out as the only state that does not collect two different types of taxes. The citizens of Wyoming have done a better job controlling their state government's desire for more taxes than any of the other candidate states, according to this train of thought. In addition, Wyoming has no capital gains or death taxes, as some states do. Even Wyoming's gas and electric utility taxes are low.

  Absence of Taxes

  DE, MT, NH	No state or local general sales tax
  WY, AK, SD	No personal income tax
  WY, SD (only taxes financial companies)	No corporate tax
  NH	No wage tax, but: interest, dividend, and indirect income taxes (also see)
  ID, VT, ME, ND	Tax their citizens every which way they can!

  What is the difference between states with no income tax and states with no sales tax? Which is better? According to economists from the Austrian school (the best known libertarian economic school), not having an income tax is better than not having a sales tax. In addition, a sales tax, or consumption tax, is fairer than an income, or production tax. An income tax is more likely to hurt production than a sales tax is likely to hurt consumption. In fact, the Cato Institute, a leading libertarian policy organization, authored a policy report that explains why the federal government should end the national income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Constitutional Republican Alan Keyes believes that a sales tax is more in line with Constitutional principles than an income tax. The Republican Liberty Caucus, a libertarian organization founded by Ron Paul (former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and the only libertarian U.S. Rep. in Congress), believes that a sales tax is more inline with freedom principles than an income tax. Also, the National Taxpayers Union is against both progressive and income taxes. This same principle holds true on a state level. In addition, sales taxes tend to be more in line with libertarian thought, because they are usually flat. On the other hand, state income taxes tend to be anti-libertarian because they usually have progressive rates. Again, the Cato Institute agrees with this train of thought.

  Not only that, but all of the candidate states except for North Dakota and Delaware are tourist hotspots. The tourists that visit these states are subject to state sales taxes but are not subject to state income taxes. This means that a state, which relies more on sales taxes receipts, places less of a tax burden on its citizens. For these reasons, states that do not have income taxes (like Wyoming) have an advantage over states that do have income taxes (like Idaho, New Hampshire, and Montana.)

• Low-tax strategies for individuals

  Low-tax strategies are important to some FSP members. These FSP members do not like to pay many taxes, and adjust their lives so that they may avoid as many taxes as possible. Wyoming is one of three candidate states without an income tax on wages, interest, or dividends and the only state that has no corporate tax. Wyoming, like many states with large rural populations, has a great deal of trade and barter activity. This activity usually goes unreported and is not counted as income. Wyoming has very low property taxes and borders sales-tax-free Montana. In fact, the metropolitan and shopping center of Montana (Billings) is less than two hours away from Sheridan, Cody, Lovell, and Powell WY. Wyoming residents from Gillette, Buffalo, Worland, and Jackson often shop in sales-tax-free Montana. These towns offer the unique opportunity (found no where else in the country) of no inventory, corporate, wage, interest, dividend, or sales tax, and very low franchise and property taxes. All of this, in addition to the barter trade, makes Wyoming the best state for low-tax strategies.

III. Guns, Laws, and Resistance to the Federal Government

• Guns

  Wyoming is a pro-gun state and has one of the most active gun cultures in the country. Wyoming passed a law that allows the state government to prevent lawsuits against the gun industry. Wyoming is tied with Vermont for having the least restrictive hunting laws. Joe Swyers, an individualist and elected city council member, ranked the 10 states hunting laws as:

  Hunting Laws (10 = best, 0 = worst)

  WY	VT	MT	AK	ID	ME	ND	NH	SD	DE
  10	10	9	8	7	3	3	2	1	0

  Many different animals are hunted in Wyoming, including black bear, cougar, coyote, turkey, jackrabbit, elk, antelope, deer, bighorn sheep, geese, duck, gray wolf (soon to be, if Wyoming gets its way), etc.

  Wyoming has "peaceable journey" laws. Even though there is no exact way to determine gun ownership rates, the best research estimates that 88% of households in Wyoming own a firearm. This is the highest percentage in the country and much higher than most of the eastern FSP states. The three lowest FSP state levels are Maine (48%), New Hampshire (36%), and Delaware (29%). [Source]

  A Wyoming resident does not need a permit to carry a handgun unless he or she wants to carry concealed. Many states legally allow open carry of handguns but in most of these states, open carry is not practical like it is in Wyoming. In Wyoming, even the tourists do not get scared when they see guns carried openly. The tourists just think it is part of one of the Old West shows, which are performed in many of Wyoming's towns during tourist season. Many people in large cities (especially east coast cities where handgun ownership rates are low, e.g. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Providence) are afraid of guns. These people tend to react poorly when they see guns being carried openly. This is true of the Boston MSA (which includes much of southern New Hampshire) and of Delaware. This is also a problem in eastern South Dakota, which is one of the reasons so many people have concealed carry permits in South Dakota. I know open carry is also frowned upon in very liberal Burlington VT. My uncle, an NRA member from Burlington, even frowns upon concealed carry. Most likely, this is also a problem in Boise ID, Anchorage AK, and Portland ME.

  Wyoming has the third-highest rate of gun retailers in the nation, with 147 gun retailers per 100,000 residents. In fact, Wyoming actually has more gun retailers than the much higher population states of Maine and New Hampshire. Out of all 10 states, Wyoming has the second-highest rate of machine gun ownership, only behind New Hampshire. Wyoming has more machine guns in the hands of its citizens than Montana, South Dakota, or Alaska.

  Gun Retailers per 100k Residents

  AK	MT	WY	ND	VT	ID	SD	ME	NH	DE
  186	154	147	93	81	79	78	50	44	18

  [Source]

  Wyoming has the highest rate of gun shows, per-capita, in the U.S. Wyoming's rate is over twice as high as Idaho's and around seven times New Hampshire's. By absolute numbers, Wyoming has 50 gun shows per year compared to New Hampshire's 17 in 2000, Alaska's 4 in 2000, and California's 188 in 1999.

  Gun Shows per Year

  State	Population (2000)	Shows	Shows per 100K people
  WY	493,782	50	10.00
  MT	902,195	54	6.00
  ID	1,293,653	49	3.75
  SD	754,844	27	3.50
  DE	783,600	16	2.00
  NH	1,235,786	17	1.50
  ME	1,274,923	14	1.00
  ND	642,200	7	1.00
  AK	626,932	4	0.75
  VT	608,827	3	0.50

  [Source]

• Laws

  The people of Wyoming value their freedom; it is part of their culture. For the most part, the people of Wyoming tend to be some of the most individualistic people in the country.

  Wyoming has less of a need for the federal government than most states. It has no metropolises, no cesspools of crime, and no welfare ghettos that think of the government as the answer to every problem.

  Wyoming does not have a huge problem with farmers demanding aid from the federal government (unlike North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho).

  Even Wyoming's animals are free from the confines of a zoo. The entire state is a zoo! With wolves, cougars, bears, bison, bald eagles, and wild horses.

  Wyoming is already one of the most free, least restrictive states in the country. If we move to Wyoming, we will already be a few years ahead of where we would be in most of the other candidate states, as far as freedom is concerned.

  Other laws:

  • Wyoming is a right-to-work state (unlike Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Alaska, Maine, and Vermont).

  • Wyoming is one of the 15 states in the U.S. (five of them are FSP states) that allow most class C fireworks. New Hampshire and Idaho are more restrictive, while Vermont and Delaware outright ban fireworks.

  • Wyoming requires motorcycle helmets for children, but it does not require bicycle helmets like Delaware and parts of Montana.

  • Wyoming has some of the least restrictive window tinting laws in the country, whereas New Hampshire, Delaware, and Alaska are more restrictive.

  • Wyoming has the least restrictive smoking laws in the country, while all of the other FSP states are much more restrictive. Delaware has the most restrictive smoking laws in the country.

  • Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Montana have the least restrictive speed limit laws out of the candidate states. The interstate speed limits are generally 75 mph in the above states, but only 65 mph in New Hampshire, Alaska, and Delaware. [Source]. One former resident of Evanston WY, said that many of the cars traveling between Salt Lake City UT, and Evanston WY go 80-85 mph without fear of being ticketed.

  • Wyoming has no laws regarding extra-high minimum wages or living wages, unlike Vermont, Maine, and Montana.

  • Wyoming has no statewide land-use planning laws, unlike Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont.

• Report

  I did some research on both economic and social freedoms in all 50 states and produced a report based on the research. I used a total of 15 different easy-to-compare factors for the report. The report listed Wyoming, South Dakota, and Alaska, three of the least-populated states in the country, as the freest states in the country. The conclusion to the report stated, "The most free states in the country tend to be the western states with very low population density rates." Wyoming and Alaska are the farthest west, low population density states in the country.

• Resistance to Federal Government

  Wyoming openly and actively resists federal laws. Many of Wyoming's citizens believe that Wyoming law trumps federal law. Sometimes the state tries to resist or ignore federal laws, while other times, the state takes the federal government to court:

  1. Wolf case – The U.S. Department of Interior reintroduced wolves into northwest Wyoming in 1995. The wolves have caused so much damage and have grown in such numbers that they are no longer an endangered species. Wyoming passed two bills that guarantee that farmers and ranchers will be allowed to shoot wolves on sight, hunting of wolves will be encouraged, and the federal government will have to reimburse Wyoming for all damages caused by the wolves. The Wyoming legislature is sick of the federal government and resents the lack of foresight it demonstrated prior to reintroducing the wolves into Wyoming. See here and here

  2. Wyoming was the last state in the country to raise the minimum drinking age to 21 years of age and did not pass zero tolerance laws until 1998. Wyoming did not pass a law preventing drivers from drinking while they drive until 2001. However, this bill did not prevent passengers from drinking. This law is not in accordance with federal law, which states that the passengers cannot have open containers. Because Wyoming chose not to follow the federal mandate, it lost some of its federal highway funds. Here's how the states stack up:

     Minimum Drinking Age Set to 21

     WY	SD	MT	ID	VT	NH	ME	AK	DE	ND
     1988	1988	1987	1987	1986	1985	1985	1984	1984	1936

     Year of Zero Tolerance for Under 21

     WY	SD	VT	ND	AK	MT	DE	ID	NH	ME
     1998	1998	1997	1997	1996	1995	1995	1994	1993	1983

     [Source]

     For more information on the issue of drinking and driving in Wyoming read, why the West has resisted drunken-driving crackdown.

  3. County sheriff in charge - County sheriffs in Wyoming demanded that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. In addition, Wyoming sheriffs demanded to see all of the BATF's and IRS' records relating to Wyoming. Wyoming took the federal government to court and won because it argued that the state was in charge based on the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Sheriff Mattis, the main sheriff representing the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association, said, "I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law." The courts ruled," Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." See here, here, and here.

  4. Wyoming sued the federal government over control of its forests and won the case. The federal government wanted permanent and complete control over the federal forests in Wyoming. Wyoming knew that the federal government refused to actively manage forests and that this would hurt tourism, traveling, and lead to more and larger forest fires. See here.

  5. Even Wyoming's citizens sue the federal government. Wyoming's citizens have the right to sue the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. It was previously thought that the BLM was somewhat immune from lawsuits, just like the IRS used to be, but that is now changed because of one brave Wyoming man.

  6. Wyoming reads the federal fine print and is able to lead other states in fights against the federal government. Wyoming started a water rebellion when it read the fine print in a federal government water rights scheme. Wyoming noticed that the scheme would give the federal government final control over all government and private water in Wyoming, and the state knew that was unconstitutional. Wyoming was able to influence other state governments to join the water rebellion. In fact, both government and private organizations from various Western states joined together, to fight the federal government. See here and here.

  7. The federal government's National Park Service tried to prevent people from climbing Wyoming's famous Devils Tower during June. June is supposedly a sacred month to some of the Native American tribes from South Dakota. The Native American tribes and the National Park Service worked together to stop the climbing. The Nation Park Service called for a voluntary ban on all climbing during June. The Wyoming Friends of Devils Tower and the Mountain States Legal Foundation fought the action. The federal courts agreed, they ruled that the National Parks Service violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Devils Tower National Monument's own management policies. The United States still means something in Wyoming because its people care about freedom. See here.

  8. Wyoming's State Supreme Court keeps state and local governments, and the press in check. Laramie tried to restrict newspapers, but the Wyoming State Supreme Court said that violated the First Amendment. The Wyoming Department of Health thought that it would help children by making it mandatory for them to get vaccinations. The Wyoming State Supreme Court found mandatory vaccinations unconstitutional. The Gillette News-Record wanted to release the names of concealed carry permit holders. The Wyoming State Supreme Court said that would violate the privacy of the permit holders. After all, open carry of firearms has always been legal in Wyoming. The only reason Wyoming passed concealed carry laws in the 1990s was so people could carry a firearm without other people knowing about it. In Wyoming, you are innocent until proven guilty and must be treated as such. See also here and here.

IV. Groups That Could Work Against Freedom

These groups include: the Green Party, labor unions, teacher unions, religious groups, and Native Americans.

1. The Green Party

   Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidate for 2000, was not able to even get on the ballot in Wyoming. He could not get enough signatures to be on the ballot, even though the standards were not very strict. The Libertarian, Constitutional, Reform, and Natural Law parties were all able to get their presidential candidate on the ballot in Wyoming. This compares very favorably to many other of the FSP candidate states where Ralph Nader not only got on the ballot, but also won a substantial number of votes.

   Green Party voters in the 2000 presidential election

   WY	0	0%
   SD	0	0%
   ID	0	0%
   DE	8,288	3%	Almost half as much as the expected FSP membership
   ND	9,530	3%	Almost half as much as the expected FSP membership
   VT	19,810	7%	Almost as much as the expected FSP membership
   NH	22,156	4%	More than the expected FSP membership
   AK	22,789	10%	More than the expected FSP membership; 1 in 10 voters
   MT	24,487	6%	More than the expected FSP membership
   ME	37,842	6%	Almost double the expected FSP membership

   [Source]

2. Labor unions

   Labor union members form another group that might oppose increased freedom in the chosen state. A significant percentage of the budgets of labor unions are spent on contributions to the campaigns of statist politicians. According to the Labor Research organization, only New Hampshire and Wyoming resisted voting for a "big-labor"-supported candidate in the whole nation during the last election cycle. Of all 10 states, only Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho have right-to-work laws.

   Union membership rates tend to be less in right-to-work states, but the rates are also influenced by the presence of certain jobs which unions prefer to organize, as well as other factors:

   Labor Union Membership (in thousands)

   SD	WY	ND	VT	ID	DE	MT	AK	NH	ME
   19	20	21	30	42	45	48	59	60	72

   [Source]

   Would you rather have 20,000 union members oppose the FSP (like Wyoming), over twice as many (like Idaho and Montana), or over thrice as many (like New Hampshire and Maine)? If New Hampshire is picked, union membership will be three times as large as the FSP membership.

   Of course, this is not to say that all union members would oppose us. Some states' own set of circumstances could play into our hands, even with union members opposing us. It's just that given the track record of labor unions in this country (and how very few members opt-out of seeing their contributions going to support statist politicians), it might be desirable to have fewer union members in the chosen state. Even if the union members wanted to help the freedom movement, in the six states that are union controlled, including New Hampshire, union members would still be forced to fight against the freedom movement, with at least their union dues

3. Teacher unions

   On the FSP Forum, Joe Swyers said, "Total teacher numbers is a crucial factor for the FSP – just like total voter numbers. In Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, and Montana, the teachers would outnumber the 20,000 Free State activists … Teachers, especially union teachers, are activists – if for no other reason than they daily reach a large number of students and their parents." Joe makes a compelling argument. Teacher unions routinely fight against: tax cuts, the liberalization of home school laws, any changes in school curricula, and any type of cutback in funding for government schools. Wyoming stands out as the only state the does not give teacher unions monopoly power or forced dues. Wyoming has the third-lowest percentage of NEA teachers, behind only South Dakota and Idaho. In addition, Wyoming has the smallest number of teachers and the smallest number of unionized teachers.

   Joe also categorized the 10 candidate states based on how much their laws restrict teacher unions. Restricting teacher unions is a good thing, and so the states listed first should be considered best, and the states listed last should be considered worst, for this criterion.

   % of K-12 employees in the NEA (2000)

   State	% in NEA	Teacher Monopoly Bargaining	Forced Dues
   WY	38	no	no
   SD	36	yes	no
   ID	38
   VT	51
   ME	53
   ND	64
   NH	41	yes	yes
   DE	60
   MT	66
   AK	74

   Sources: here and here. (States with less than 1,000 AFT "votes" were omitted from the source for AFT numbers).

4. Religious Groups

   Wyoming is the fifth least-religious state in America, and is likely the second least-religious candidate state, according to this report. In addition, Wyoming has much more religious diversity than most states.

   WY Religious Preferences

   No religion	20%
   Catholic	18%
   Christian	17%
   Baptist	9%
   Lutheran	9%
   Other	7%
   Latter-Day Saints	7%
   Methodist	5%
   Presbyterian	4%
   Episcopalian	4%

   Wyoming has better religious diversity than the nine other candidate states. If the major religions of one of the other candidate states stood united against freedom, we would have a very difficult time trying to help the state break free. That's why religious diversity is important. In a state like Wyoming, all of the religions would have to stand against us to have a substantial impact against the FSP, but in states like New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, and Montana, just one or two major religions might be able to break the FSP.

   Religious Monopoly Control
   (% of state residents in the 3 major religions for that state)
   (Lower % is better)

   WY	36%	(18% Catholic, 9% Lutheran, 9% Baptist)
   ID	38%	(15% Catholic, 14% Latter-Day Saints*, 9% Baptist)
   MT	43%	(22% Catholic, 14% Lutheran, 7% Methodist)
   NH	47%	(35% Catholic, 6% Baptist, 6% Congregational)
   DE	48%	(20% Methodist, 19% Baptist, 9% Catholic)
   ME	48%	(24% Catholic, 15% Baptist, 9% Methodist)
   VT	50%	(38% Catholic, 6% Methodist, 6% Congregational)
   SD	65%	(27% Lutheran, 25% Catholic, 13% Methodist)
   ND	72%	(35% Lutheran, 30% Catholic, 7% Methodist)

   * The Mormon Church claims that 26% of those living in Idaho are LDS.
   [Source]. No data for AK.

   However, the Christian members of the FSP should not be afraid of moving to Wyoming. For example, K-Love, a national group of Christian radio stations from California, has five stations in Wyoming. Wyoming's religious groups can be broken down to different regions of the state, to some extent. The southwestern portion of Wyoming has the bulk of the state's Latter-Day Saints population. The least religious parts of Wyoming tend to be the mining towns, and the college town of Laramie.

5. Native Americans

   Wyoming has one Indian reservation – the Wind River Indian Reservation. Most of the reservation is in Fremont County (whose largest city is Riverton). However, most of the people in Riverton are not Native Americans. Native Americans, both on and off the reservation, make up 2.3% of Wyoming's population and represent the second-largest minority group in Wyoming. (The largest minority group in Wyoming is Hispanics at 3.2% to 6.4% of the population, depending on how you define Hispanic).

   Native American population %

   NH	VT	DE	ME	ID	WY	ND	MT	SD	AK
   < 1	< 1	< 1	< 1	1.4	2.3	4.9	6.2	8.3	15.6

   [Source]

   When compared to Wyoming, the other western and mid-western states have both more Indian Reservations and a larger Native American population. Native Americans might work for, against, or indifferent to the principles of the FSP. Many Native Americans are unemployed and rely on government subsidies. However, because they are unemployed they have plenty of free time to be activists. If the FSP members are able to convince the Native American population of Wyoming, or any other states, that we are on their side, there could be thousands of new freedom activists!

V. Miscellaneous Factors

Miscellaneous factors include such things as: pro-business environment, climate and weather, livability, friendliness, gambling, private schools, jobs, "firsts", and location.

1. Pro-Business Environment

   According to the 1999 Economic Freedom Index which ranks all 50 states, Wyoming has more economic freedom than eight of the other candidate states. The Index ranks Wyoming better than New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana, and Alaska:

   Economic Freedom Index (1-50)

   ID	WY	SD	NH	DE	ND	MT	VT	AK	ME
   1	4	5	6	7	21	26	34	38	42

   The 2002 Small Business Survival Index ranks Wyoming as the third-best state for small businesses in the entire country. Wyoming bests such states as Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Delaware. The candidate states of Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and Maine are all ranked as part of the worst 25 states in the country for small businesses.

   Expansion Management Magazine ranked Cheyenne as a Five Star Community for quality of life. (These rankings were done so that small to mid-sized companies would have a basis to compare different cities for relocation purposes).

   Many people have companies that are financial, electronic, or mail order related. No matter which state is picked, the profits of these companies will not change much. However, the dollars made from the company will mean less in Alaska or New Hampshire than they will mean in Wyoming, because of its low cost of living. Likewise, if one of these companies moves from New Hampshire or Delaware to Wyoming, the dollars will be worth more and the company owner will be able to help the FSP out to a greater degree. Most business owners prefer a general sales tax, like Wyoming has, to personal and corporate income taxes, like New Hampshire, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Vermont have. Businesses find that sales taxes are easier to comply with than personal and corporate income taxes. This is because sales taxes are straightforward and easy to understand, unlike corporate tax laws.

   According to the Fiduciary Group, Delaware and Wyoming are the only two candidate states that have a worldwide reputation for being business-friendly. (See the Fiduciary Group's report on Wyoming). According to a report by CRA of America, Wyoming might be a better state for LLCs than either Nevada or Delaware. In 1977, Wyoming became the first state to authorize Limited Liability Corporations. Wyoming has some of the most liberal LLC laws in the country, and continues to attract both national and international companies.

   Wyoming is much less regulated than most states. Wyoming has many advantages for companies (in addition to being personal and corporate income tax free). You do not even have to get a business license in many parts of Wyoming. For example, Johnson County (with its towns of Buffalo and Kaycee) has no business license requirements. Although the state of Wyoming just created a standard set of building codes (the Universal Building Codes standard), many of Wyoming's counties do not have any laws relating to the UBC standard and do not enforce the state law. The northeastern states, especially New Hampshire and Maine, have many 19th century farmhouses. Many people want to see these houses preserved even if it means that property owners cannot renovate the houses, as they see fit. Environmental regulations are hurting the mining business in Montana, the fishery and logging businesses in Maine, and even the housing market in Vermont.

2. Livability and Crime

   Out of the 10 candidate states, Wyoming has the second-highest livability ranking. In fact, according to a 2002 report by Morgan Quitno Press, Wyoming is the eighth-most livable state in the country. The report also claims that Wyoming has the sixth-lowest crime rate in the country. Wyoming helps prove the libertarian point the private prisons do not automatically mean high crime because Wyoming is a very low crime state.

   Percent of prison population in private prisons:
   Alaska, 33.5%
   Idaho, 23.9%
   Wyoming, 21.3%
   North Dakota, 5.1%
   Montana, 3.4%
   South Dakota, 1.7%
   Maine, 0.6%
   Delaware, New Hampshire, and Vermont, 0%

   Livability Ranking

   State:	NH	WY	SD	ME	ND	VT	DE	ID	AK	MT
   Rank:	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

   [Source]

3. Friendliness

   Wyoming is a friendly and welcoming place to outsiders. Several million people travel to Wyoming on a yearly basis. These tourists spend money in Wyoming and help support Wyoming's economy. Wyoming's tourists come from all walks of life and have made Wyoming's residents accustomed to interacting with all types of people. Most people that live in Wyoming are not even from Wyoming. In fact, only 42.5% of Wyoming's population is native, making it the second-best candidate state for that factor. Wyoming is far enough west that people do not care about the North-South division that is more prevalent in the East. Wyoming welcomes both Northerners and Southerners.

4. Private Schools

   Wyoming has the third-highest percentage of children enrolled in private schools. According to the following report, the percent of children in Wyoming's private schools is around 250% higher than New Hampshire's.

   % of School-Age Pop. in Private Schools (Elementary and Secondary)

   ME	ID	WY	DE	MT	AK	SD	ND	NH	VT
   16.2	14.6	14.3	12.6	11.8	9.4	7.7	5.5	4.1	2.0

   [Source] 1994 (sorry, latest figures I have)

   After looking at the above report, a Porcupine gave the following insightful observations on the FSP Forum: "States like Wyoming have a political disadvantage over states like Delaware. In Delaware, everyone in Wilmington who can afford to do so sends their kids to private school because of the center for drugs and violence that some of those big city public schools have become (or at least are perceived to be). Whereas, Wyoming schools seem clean and safe, and even some of the richest families send their children to public schools."

5. Jobs

   Wyoming is expected to produce fewer jobs in the next 10 years than any of the other candidate states. This topic bears extended discussion.

   • Wyoming's past and future growth

     According to the 2000 Census, Wyoming's population grew from 453,588 residents in 1990 to 493,782 in 2000. This means that Wyoming was able to handle 40,194 new residents in 10 years. Currently, Wyoming has a lower than average unemployment rate, which means that all of the people who moved to Wyoming in the 1990s were able to find jobs. Wyoming's per-capita income is growing much faster than the nation as a whole, and has progressed from 36th in the nation (1996) to 28th in the nation (2000) and is currently 20th in the nation (2001).

     Cheyenne WY is the northernmost city in the Rocky Mountain's Front Range region. This region has around 2.5 million people, many high-tech companies, and good transportation lines. Over time, more and more Colorado companies are moving to Wyoming. They choose Wyoming because of its low crime and very low taxes. If the FSP is able to prove to these companies that we are a pro-business organization and have a skilled workforce, then we will be able to attract even more companies to Wyoming.

   • Out-of-state jobs

     Wyoming is better positioned than most states, including all of the western states, for out-of-state jobs. Wyoming should have enough jobs for the FSP, by itself. However, some members may want very specialized jobs that are not available in relatively small MSAs, like Cheyenne WY. Ft. Collins CO, for example, is larger than Billings MT, and is only 40 miles from Wyoming. Wyoming is close to both the Salt Lake City/Park City/Ogden and the Ft. Collins/Longmont/Denver areas. Wyoming is even closer to Montana's largest population area, Billings, than almost all of Montana itself is. Wyoming is less than one and a half hours from Billings, MT. Parts of western Wyoming are much closer to two of Idaho's four largest cities than almost all of Idaho is. Even the Black Hills region of Wyoming is not isolated. In fact it is closer to the second-largest MSA, and entertainment center, of South Dakota than almost all of South Dakota is. Also, Wyoming is only 30 minutes away from the largest city in western Nebraska – Scottsbluff.

     All of these cities and metro centers offer some jobs that may require only a few days per week of actual in-office work. Pilots, marketers, advertisers, investors, writers, healthcare professionals, truck drivers, telecommuters, and franchise expanders will have no trouble finding work in these out-of-state cities. It should be noted, that all of these jobs are available in Wyoming, as well.

     Front-range MSAs near Wyoming:

     • Ft Collins/Loveland - distance 40 miles, population 260,000+
     • Greeley - distance 63 miles, population 200,000+
     • Longmont/Boulder - distance 71 miles, population 300,000+
     • Denver - distance 94 miles, population 2,200,000+
     • All of the above - population 3,000,000+
     • All of the above - 2025 projected population 5,000,000+

     More statistics on Ft. Collins MSA from the Northern Colorado Economic Development Council:

     • The Ft. Collins MSA is one of the 10 fastest growing MSAs in the country
     • The Ft. Collins MSA expects 215,000 new jobs between 1997 and 2010
     • ? Median Income is $58,200
     • ? Major Employers: Colorado State University, ConAgra Beef, Hewlett-Packard, Agilent Technologies, Poudre Valley Health Systems, Eastman Kodak, Wal-Mart, State Farm Insurance, StarTek, Inc., Woodward, Advanced Energy, Teledyne WaterPik, McKee Medical Center, Anheuser-Busch, and Celestica

   • Job growth

     Let us consider the notion of "more jobs is better" (the assumption made in the spreadsheet concerning the Jobs variable). We can make a list of advantages and disadvantages of a high-growth state and a low-growth state:

     High job-growth state:

     1. More jobs might mean the state is probably already experiencing heavy immigration, which may lead to hostility towards newcomers. Add to that a political agenda, and we may have a difficult time in the area of acceptance.

     2. More jobs might mean the economy in the state is already healthy. This means FSP influence will be harder to prove in "turning things around", thus making the Free State model less attractive to other states. FSP may thus be a "one-state wonder."

     3. More jobs, above the needs of FSP and Friends-of-FSP, will draw economic refugees from other states. These will dilute FSP efforts to free the states, particularly if the refugees are from nearby statist states that are exporting jobs due to poor economic policies.

     4. More jobs means a fast-increasing population, so FSP may have difficulty staying on top of things, and may find itself more in a defensive role, rather than making progress in increasing freedom.

     5. More jobs might mean the choice in places to live would be wider, although jobs do tend to be concentrated in larger cities.

     6. More jobs might mean easier access to occupations for FSP members who are not retirees.

     Low job-growth state:
     1. Fewer jobs, especially at the lowest levels, will effectively shut off all statist immigration for the period that FSP members are immigrating to the state. This will give us time to get up-to-speed politically, and start influencing things – particularly in the area of providing other disincentives for statists to move to the state, which will be needed as FSP policies gradually improve the economic picture.

     2. Fewer jobs might mean the economy is flat. Thus, we should be able to subsequently make a convincing demonstration of the benefits of freedom to the economy. This demonstration will help spread freedom to neighboring states, particularly those that are languishing.

     3. Fewer jobs might mean more difficult access to occupations for FSP members who are not retirees (the retirees should have no problem). It will take more years for all our member-population to move to the state. However, uniquely in Wyoming's case, its status as the default backup state (in case FSP fails to reach 20,000) means members can start moving there immediately after the vote is taken, so members will have more years to immigrate to Wyoming.

     4. Fewer jobs might mean that more FSP members will have to go to tech or vocation school to learn a new skill.

     5. Fewer jobs might mean that more FSP members might want to travel out of state for a job. (Wyoming is one of the best candidate states for this. The Ft. Collins MSA starts only forty minutes from Cheyenne and expects 215,000 new jobs between 1997 and 2010.)

     A further factor to this equation is that it will become generally known that a large block of business-friendly people will be moving to the chosen state. In addition, this block of people will have diverse skills. These facts might make corporations reconsider Wyoming in a new and positive light, for location of new facilities.

     The above shows that, far from being an unalloyed good, a high jobs number serves to ease initial FSP entry into the state, while likely making things more difficult for us, later on. For that reason, in the large FSP comparison spreadsheet, Paul Bonneau pegged an intermediate number of jobs (60,000) as ideal for the FSP, rather than just using it as a simple "more is better" measure, as Jason did on the regular spreadsheet.

6. Wyoming Firsts

   Wyoming is a trend setting state and the first state in the nation in several different categories. I am not sure how important this factor is; certainly, it is not as important as the first five factors I discussed in this report. However, this factor was brought up on the FSP Forum, when it was mentioned that New Hampshire has the earliest, or first, primary in the nation. This is true, although any state, at any time, can change when it has its election primary. Wyoming has an impressive list of firsts, itself. Some of these may be good while others might be looked at as bad, but one thing is for sure, these trends did catch on in the rest of the country. Many people think that the FSP might spread to other states, in much the same way that Wyoming's firsts have.

   Wyoming's Firsts:

   • First state to allow women to vote
   • First woman Justice of the Peace
   • First all woman jury
   • First woman bailiff
   • First woman elected to a statewide office (Superintendent)
   • First woman governor
   • First town to be governed entirely by women
   • First national park
   • First ranger station
   • First national monument (Devil's Tower)
   • First national forest
   • First American rodeo
   • First state to allow limited liability corporations

     [Source]

7. Location

   Wyoming is centrally located between the northwestern, southwestern, and mid-western states. Because of this, Wyoming's interstate roads travel from Canada to Mexico and through New York City, Chicago, Omaha, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco. Wyoming is located less than two hours from large airline hubs in Salt Lake City and Denver. Wyoming is surrounded by the low-population, liberty-friendly states of South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. When the FSP is successful in Wyoming, any of these candidate states would make a good second state to liberate.

   Wyoming is one of only two FSP candidate states which does not share a border with Canada. Some people have tried to claim this is a strike against Wyoming. However, I feel that this factor is a plus for Wyoming. Having a border with Canada gives the federal government more Constitutional power in a state. Especially now, with the Homeland Security Department, a growing international terrorist threat, US Patriot Acts I and II, and increased border controls, having a Canadian border could be a hindrance to a candidate state.

   Kelton, a fellow Porcupine, published a series of very interesting articles dealing with land-locked states, border security, and economic freedom of neighboring states. After the articles, he summed up the articles with the conclusion: "The Myth has been debunked! 1) A border with Canada is a potential liability. 2) A long coastline is not necessary or even desirable for a free state to exist."

   Even if all of the problems the U.S. government might bring on a Canadian-bordered Free State are ignored, it should be noted, that the Canadian government would likely be against the Free State. The Canadian central government is anti-freedom, in general. It is against many of the things the FSP member love, like guns. Even the provincial governments are against freedom. According to Economic Freedom in North America, all of the Canadian providences, except for one, have less economic freedom than even the least-free American state. Canada might try to blame all of its future crime, gun, drug, and moral problems on the Free State. These issues were discussed in detail on the FSP Forum thread titled, Border with Canada? Bad Idea. Canadian Government is not a friend.

VI. Conclusion

• Comparison Spreadsheets

  Both Jason and Paul Bonneau made spreadsheets that compare the FSP candidate states on various factors. Jason tried to limit his spreadsheet to the factors that he thought were most important for the FSP members to consider. Paul's spreadsheet includes many of the same factors. Additionally, he added a large number of useful but less important factors to the spreadsheet. Both spreadsheets place Wyoming well ahead of the rest of the states.

• State-by-state Comparisons
  • Wyoming vs. Alaska

    Some of the FSP members feel Alaska is the best state. However, in my opinion, Wyoming surpasses Alaska. Wyoming is located near the center of the country, whereas Alaska is almost a week's drive from the lower 48. The groups that would oppose the FSP are more powerful in Alaska. It has a larger percentage and amount of government, labor union, teacher union, Native American, and Green Party members than Wyoming. Alaska is the coldest and most isolated of the candidate states, whereas Wyoming is the third-warmest and is very close to two major metropolitan centers. Alaska has more opt-outs than any other state and is likely to lose many more people after the first winter, than Wyoming is. Alaska has a much higher percentage of people receiving government assistance than Wyoming. Alaska has a reputation for attracting criminals and is the ninth-highest violent crime rate in the country, whereas Wyoming is one of the safest states in the country.

    Campaigning would be very hard during Alaska's cold season because: the daylight hours are very short, much of Alaska is to cold to go outside (for many people), and it literally takes four to five days to drive from Alaska's largest city to its capitol city. Out of all the low population states, Alaska has the largest state legislative districts. This is because Alaska only has 40 members in its state house and 20 members in its state senate. This compares very poorly to Wyoming, which has the second-smallest state legislative districts in the county. In addition, Alaska has a large budget deficit problem, whereas Wyoming is the only candidate state that does not have a budget problem.

  • Wyoming vs. South Dakota

    Some of the FSP members have suggested that South Dakota is the best compromise state for the FSP project. While this is an interesting point, I believe that Wyoming actually is the best compromise state. South Dakota is very dependent on farming and the federal subsidies that come with it. Wyoming is near two major metropolitan centers but South Dakota is not near any. Wyoming has better religious diversity than any of the candidate states, but in South Dakota the combined numbers of Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists make up 65% of the population. Wyoming has a very low native-born population while South Dakota has the second-highest native-born population. Wyoming has warm areas spread all across the state, but the only remotely warm part of South Dakota is in one section of the Black Hills. Wyoming has both windy and non-windy areas while all of South Dakota is quite windy. Wyoming has mountains, hills, and valleys, but almost all of South Dakota is very flat.

  • Wyoming vs. Montana

    In many ways, the same group of FSP members is attracted to both Montana and Wyoming. However, Wyoming has many advantages over Montana. Wyoming's population is much more likely to vote for small-government candidates for President, and its citizen's ideology is more pro-freedom. Montana has much stronger opposition groups in the way of stronger labor union (because of no right-to-work laws), teacher union, Green Party, and Native American groups. Montana has a big problem with liberals from California moving to the entire western part of the state; as opposed to Wyoming, where California liberals are only moving to Jackson Hole. Montana's farmers are very dependent on the federal government; and many of the people are on welfare. Montana has a large border with Canada, which opens it up to all types of homeland security, border control, and terrorist prevention laws and federal regulations. Montana has the lowest mean household income in the country, whereas Wyoming's is more in line with the national average. Montana is heavily regulated with parts of it having bicycle helmet and living wage laws, unlike Wyoming, which does not have such laws. One Porcupine even said that they think of Montana as, "the Maine of the West." In fact, in Wyoming, many places do not even have business licenses or building code laws. Wyoming has lower property taxes than Montana and also has no income or corporate taxes.

  • Wyoming vs. New Hampshire

    Although New Hampshire is better for the FSP than some states, it does not seem to compare favorably to Wyoming. For starters, Wyoming's population is only 39% as large as New Hampshire's. Wyoming has inexpensive elections at $4,700,000, whereas New Hampshire has the most expensive elections, at a whopping $19,600,000. If these numbers hold, the FSP members will have to come up with well over four times as much money to run campaigns as successfully in New Hampshire than in Wyoming. New Hampshire has a very low estimated rate of gun ownership, at only 36%. Wyoming, on the other hand, has the highest estimated rate of gun ownership in the country at 88%. In addition, Wyoming has 10 gun shows for every 100,000 people, whereas New Hampshire has only 1.5. New Hampshire has large state legislative districts (especially senate) and no term limits or ballot imitative processes, while Wyoming is just the opposite. New Hampshire is not a right-to-work state, and because of this, it has both a large number of members in both labor and teacher unions.

    New Hampshire is surrounded by very statists states (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, and Canada), while Wyoming is surrounded by many liberty-friendly states (Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, and Nevada). This means that if New Hampshire was picked it would likely attract the few freedom activists that are left in its surrounding states. This would leave the freedom movements of the surrounding states in even worse shape and prevent the FSP from expanding into New Hampshire's neighboring states. However, something even worse is already happening in New Hampshire: statists from Boston are moving to New Hampshire at an alarming rate. This growth is expected to increase, and even more so if the FSP selects New Hampshire and de-regulates business laws.

  • Wyoming vs. Idaho

    Even though some people consider Idaho a superior candidate state over New Hampshire, this does not necessarily mean that Idaho is superior to Wyoming. Wyoming has several very important, distinct advantages over Idaho. Idaho's current population is over 2.68 times the size of Wyoming's, and is expected to grow so fast that it will soon be three times. This is a major concern, because it could indicate that Idaho needs three times as many committed and dedicated freedom activists as Wyoming, in order for the entire project to be a success. Wyoming's state house and senate districts are much smaller than Idaho's. Wyoming's districts are 8,230 and 16,000 people, while Idaho's are 36,962 and over 38,300, respectively. Wyoming does not tax personal or corporate income, and it has low property tax rates. On the other hand, Idaho taxes its citizens every which way it can, including personal income, corporate income, sales, and property taxes. Idaho has a very large and powerful Latter-Day Saints contingent that is whole-heartedly against such trivial activities as smoking, drinking, and using products that contain caffeine. The Mormon population of Idaho is estimated at being anywhere from 14% to 26% of the state's entire religious population. In Wyoming, on the other hand, as one Porcupine said, people just want to be left alone.

  • Wyoming vs. other low population states

    Wyoming stands out as the best low population state. Wyoming is in a class of its own, as far as population is concerned. Many people consider South Dakota and Delaware to be low population states, but their respective populations are over 50% larger than Wyoming's. Even though Alaska and Delaware are low population states, their state legislative districts are very large, whereas Wyoming has the second-smallest district sizes in the country. Wyoming voters were more likely to vote for a small government candidate during the 2000 presidential election than voters from any other state, including all of the low population states. In addition, the ideology of Wyoming's citizens is more pro-freedom than every low population state except for Alaska. In fact, the ideology of Wyoming's citizens is, figuratively, light years ahead of Vermont, Delaware, and North Dakota. Wyoming is not very dependent on federal subsidies, unlike North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska. Out of all low population states, Wyoming has the second best weather. In fact, the weather is so bad in Alaska, North Dakota, and many parts of South Dakota, that many of the FSP members might abandon one of those states after their first winter there.

  • Wyoming vs. other western states

    There are many reasons to believe that Wyoming is the best western state for the FSP. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska are the four western states the FSP is considering. Wyoming's population is anywhere from 140,000 to 842,428 less than any of the other western states. Wyoming has fewer labor union and teacher union members than any of the other western states, which means less opposition to the principles of freedom. Wyoming does not have a Green Party movement, unlike Alaska and Montana, which have both a strong, growing Green Party, and other pro-regulation, environmental groups. Wyoming receives less federal aid than any other western state. Wyoming has a higher mean household income than any of the other western states, except for Alaska (which has a very high cost of living). The state house and senate districts are smaller in Wyoming than in any of the other western states, and they are much smaller than in all of the western states, except for Montana. The city governments in Wyoming are smaller and impose fewer regulations than the city governments of all other western FSP candidate states. Wyoming is the least isolated western state; it is closer to major metropolitan centers than any of the other western states.

• Key Wyoming Benefits
  • Best
    • Smallest number of people, registered voters, and actual voters
    • Smallest number of teachers and unionized teachers
    • Highest vote for small government candidates
    • Highest percentage of gun ownership and gun shows
    • Only FSP candidate state without a budget deficit
    • Most libertarian members of Congress

  • 2nd Best
    • 2nd lowest percentage of native residents
    • 2nd highest livability ranking
    • 2nd most economic freedom
    • 2nd lowest number of labor union members
    • 2nd smallest state legislative district size
    • 2nd most centrally located state

  • 3rd Best
    • 3rd least expensive elections
    • 3rd most freedom-friendly citizen ideology
    • 3rd best gun laws (and 1st in hunting laws)
    • 3rd warmest winters

  • Other
    • Near two major metropolitan centers (Denver, Salt Lake City)
    • Western individualist culture
    • State government actively resists the federal government
    • Very low taxes (no income, capital gains, or death taxes; lowest property taxes)
    • No US/Canadian border federal regulation/homeland security issues
    • Internationally recognized for very liberal limited liability corporation laws
    • No Green Party or socialist presence
    • High speed limits and few police
    • Excellent outdoor recreational opportunities
    • Two wonders of the world: Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons

• More information
  • Wyoming Links
  • Pictures
  • Outdoor Recreation
  • Selected Newspaper Articles
  • A Comparison of Wyoming's Climate to That of Other States

State Legislature Report

State Legislature Report for the Free State Project

by Joe Swyers

Introduction

Following this paragraph will be a paragraph for each state. These lists are of the state Representatives and Senators the Free Staters will be dealing with or running against. Any incumbent who won with over 60% of the vote will be a tough opponent. Those who won with 80% or were unopposed may be extremely hard to unseat. Take note that some of them have many, many, years of experience. Of the candidate states, only Maine, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming have term limits.

The tables below are in "comma separated values" format. If you copy a table and paste it into a text editor and save it as type ".csv," then you can open the file with a spreadsheet program and manipulate the columns and rows as you wish.

Access to the State Legislature

How high is the hurdle to to gain a seat in the lower house of the states being considered? Often the cost of a campaign can be estimated by the population needed to be reached -- the number doors to knock on, brochures to mail, people to talk to, etc. Running a successful campaign to win is far more time consuming and expensive in a district of 20,000 people than in a district of 3,000 people. An often-used figure is $2 per vote for local and primary, $5 per vote for state general elections. But high profile, hotly contested elections can be double that. Our recent county commissioner race in a small county without television ads likely cost each side several thousand dollars -- for only two thousand votes total!

Below are the states rated by the number of people in each district for House and Senate, respectively (2002 population estimate divided by number of electoral districts [note that several states have multi-seat districts]).

House

1. Vermont - 5,609
2. Wyoming - 8,317
3. Maine - 8,570
4. Montana - 9,090
5. North Dakota - 13,489
6. New Hampshire - 14,489
7. Alaska - 16,100
8. Delaware - 19,683
9. South Dakota - 21,743
10. Idaho - 38,314

Senate

1. North Dakota - 13,489
2. Wyoming - 16,634
3. Montana - 18,180
4. South Dakota - 21,743
5. Alaska - 32,200
6. Maine - 37,000
7. Idaho - 38,314
8. Delaware - 38,429
9. Vermont - 47,462
10. New Hampshire - 53,125

If we average the above rankings, we can come up with an overall ranking for ease of access to both state houses, as follows:
1. Wyoming (avg rank: 2.0)
2. North Dakota (3.0)
3. Montana (3.5)
4. Maine (4.5)
5. Vermont (5.0)
6. Alaska (6.0)
7. South Dakota (6.5)
8. New Hampshire, Delaware (8.0)
10. Idaho (8.5)

The above ranking takes into account only district size and does not consider term limits or fusion voting. The following states have term limits on state legislators: Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Maine. The following states have legalized fusion voting: Idaho, South Dakota, and Vermont, while New Hampshire, Maine, and Alaska indirectly allow fusion candidacies.

Idaho

There are no term limits in Idaho. The legislature repealed them. The Free States thus stand less of a chance against incumbents who've been in either the House and/or Senate for decades. Even if a repeal of the repeal finally passes (and it was close in 2002) it will allow long-time Representives to now serve another few terms in the Senate or vice versa. To have term limits take effect by the time the Free Staters are ready for the House or Senate the repeal of the legislators' repeal must be top priority.
(the lowercase letter after the term number refers to an explanatory note below the list)

House

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist.#, District, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
Democrat, 100%, 5, 25a, Ketchum, Jaquet, Wendy, Tourism Consultant
Democrat, 86%, 3, 19a, Boise, Bieter, David, Attorney
Democrat, 83%, 8+1d, 19b, Boise, Robison, Kenneth, Retired Journalist
Democrat, 79%, 4, 16a, Boise, Henbest, Margaret, Pediatric Nurse Practitioner
Democrat, 60%, 4, 30a, Pocatello, Boe, Donna
Democrat, 60%, 1, 07b, Lewiston, Naccarato, Mike
Democrat, 57%, 3, 02a, Wallace, Shepherd, Mary Lou, Retired Business Owner
Democrat, 54%, 1, 16b, Boise, Langhorst, David
Democrat, 53%, 2, 30b, Pocatello, Smith, Elaine
Democrat, 53%, 1+1c, 06b, Moscow, Ringo, Shirley
Democrat, 53%, 2, 29b, Pocatello, Martinez, Elmer
Democrat, 52%, 7, 08b, Orofino, Cuddy, Charles, Surveying/Engineering Consultant
Democrat, 52%, 7+2b, 07a, Lewiston, Mitchell, Mike
Democrat, 50%, 1, 29a, Pocatello, Anderson, Allen
Democrat, 49%, 1, 04b, Coeur d'Alene, Sayler, George
Democrat, 48%, 1, 04a, Coeur d'Alene, Douglas, Bonnie
Republican, 100%, 4, 03a, Hayden, Clark, Jim, Retired
Republican, 100%, 4, 06a, Moscow, Trail, Tom, Education Consultant/Farmer
Republican, 100%, 2, 10b, Caldwell, Bolz, Darrell, UI Extension Professor Emeritus
Republican, 100%, 1, 11a, Emmett, Skippen, Kathy
Republican, 100%, 1, 11b, Nampa, Bauer, Gary
Republican, 100%, 1, 22a, Glenns Ferry, Wills, Richard
Republican, 100%, 3, 24a, Twin Falls, Smith, Leon, Lawyer
Republican, 100%, 4, 26a, Rupert, Stevenson, John "Bert", Farmer
Republican, 100%, 8, 26b, Jerome, Bell, Maxine
Republican, 100%, 9, 27b, Burley, Newcomb, Bruce, Farmer/Rancher
Republican, 100%, 1, 32a, Idaho Falls, McGeachin, Janice
Republican, 100%, 1, 34a, Rexburg, Shirley, Mack
Republican, 100%, 2, 34b, Rexburg, Raybould, Dell, Farmer/Businessman
Republican, 100%, 6, 35b, Challis, Barrett, Lenore-Hardy
Republican, 80%, 1, 09b, Fruitland, Edmunson, Clete
Republican, 80%, 7, 13b, Nampa, Deal, W.W."Bill", Insurance
Republican, 77%, 10, 12a, Nampa, Schafer, Robert, Architect
Republican, 75%, 11, 35a, Rigby, Wood, JoAn, Partner - Ranch/Farm
Republican, 73%, 1, 28b, Blackfoot, Cannon, Joseph
Republican, 70%, 2, 31a, Franklin, Bradford, Larry, Retired Mink Rancher
Republican, 70%, 1, 10a, Caldwell, Ring, Robert"Bob"
Republican, 68%, 5, 03b, Rathdrum, Meyer, Wayne, Farmer
Republican, 68%, 1, 20a, Meridian, Snodgrass, Mark
Republican, 68%, 2, 24b, Twin Falls, Block, Sharon, Property Manager/Former Teacher
Republican, 67%, 10, 23b, Filer, Jones, Douglas, Farmer
Republican, 66%, 11, 13a, Nampa, Crow, Dolores
Republican, 66%, 3, 27a, Oakley, Bedke, Scott, Rancher
Republican, 65%, 3, 14a, Star, Moyle, Mike, Agribusiness
Republican, 65%, 7, 21b, Boise, Tilman, Fred, Business Consultant
Republican, 65%, 2, 12b, Nampa, Collins, Gary, Insurance agency owner
Republican, 65%, 1+4e, 32b, Idaho Falls, Rydalch, Ann
Republican, 65%, 2, 01b, Dover, Eskridge, George, Real Estate
Republican, 64%, 4, 20b, Meridian, McKague, Shirley, Family Service Station Business
Republican, 63%, 3, 15a, Boise, Smylie, Steve, Teacher
Republican, 62%, 4, 09a, Midvale, Denney, Lawerence, Farmer
Republican, 62%, 7, 21a, Kuna, Sali, William "Bill", Attorney
Republican, 61%, 2, 31b, Montpelier, Langford, Eulalie-Teichert
Republican, 61%, 6, 33a, Idaho Falls, Barraclough, Jack, Certified Professional Hydrologist
Republican, 61%, 2, 08a, Donnelly, Roberts, Ken, Farmer
Republican, 60%, 10, 23a, Grand View, Field, Frances
Republican, 60%, 5, 18a, Boise, Field, Debbie
Republican, 59%, 1, 14b, Eagle, Kulczyk, Henry
Republican, 59%, 4, 28a, Blackfoot, Lake, Dennis, Agribusiness
Republican, 56%, 2+4a, 05a, Post Falls, Kellogg, Hilde, Businesswoman
Republican, 56%, 4, 18b, Boise, Ellsworth, Julie
Republican, 55%, 4, 01a, Sandpoint, Campbell, John
Republican, 54%, 1, 22b, Mountain Home, Nielsen, Peter
Republican, 54%, 1, 05b, Post Falls, Eberle, Charles
Republican, 53%, 6, 15b, Boise, Black, Max, Insurance
Republican, 51%, 2, 02b, St. Maries, Harwood, R.J. "Dick"
Republican, 51%, 1, 17a, Boise, Garrett, Kathy
Republican, 51%, 5, 25b, Shoshone, Ridinger, Tim, Hay Hauler
Republican, 48%, 1, 17b, Boise, Miller, Janet
Republican, 46%, 4, 33b, Idaho Falls, Gagner, Lee, Multiple Businesses-Real Estate

a (Served 4 Terms, House 1983-91),
b (Served 2 Terms, House 1967-1970; Served 6 Terms, Senate 1971-1982),
c (Served 1 Term, House 1999-2000),
d (Served 1 Term, Senate, 1979-80),
e (Served 4 Terms, Senate 1983-1990)

Senate

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist.#, District, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
Democrat, 71%, 1+2b, 19, Boise, Burkett, Mike
Democrat, 65%, 1, 30, Pocatello, Malepeai, Edgar
Democrat, 64%, 3+2g, 25, Ketchum, Stennett, Clint, Businessman, TV Broadcasting
Democrat, 53%, 4, 29, McCammon, Marley, Bert, Teacher/Farmer
Democrat, 51%, 1+4c, 2, Osburn, Calabretta, Martha
Democrat, 49%, 1, 22, Mountain Home, Kennedy, Fred
Democrat, 43%, 1, 17, Boise, Werk, Elliot
Republican, 100%, 1, 10, Caldwell, McWilliams, Ron
Republican, 100%, 12, 24, Kimberly, Noh, Laird
Republican, 100%, 11, 27, Declo, Darrington, Denton, Farmer/Teacher
Republican, 100%, 3, 28, Pingree, Williams, Stanley, Farmer/Rancher
Republican, 100%, 2, 34, Rexburg, Hill, Brent, Accountant
Republican, 79%, 6, 14, Meridian, Bunderson, Harold R. "Hal", CPA/Auditor, Retired
Republican, 76%, 2, 11, Emmett, Little, Brad, Rancher
Republican, 76%, 4, 35, Terreton, Burtenshaw, Don, Farmer/Rancher/Business
Republican, 76%, 5, 31, Soda Springs, Geddes, Robert, Environmental Engineer
Republican, 72%, 4, 1, Sandpoint, Keough, Shawn, Public Relations
Republican, 71%, 7, 26, Rupert, Cameron, Dean
Republican, 70%, 2, 13, Caldwell, Lodge, Patti, Education Media Consultant/Agribusiness Owner
Republican, 69%, 4+2e, 32, Idaho Falls, Richardson, Melvin M. "Mel", Public relations/Broadcaster
Republican, 68%, 1+2d, 9, New Plymouth, Pearce, Monty, Rancher
Republican, 68%, 3+3f, 18, Boise, Sorensen, Sheila
Republican, 65%, 1, 20, Meridian, Sweet, Gerry
Republican, 61%, 1, 12, Nampa, McKenzie, Curt
Republican, 61%, 2, 8, Kooskia, Brandt, R. Skipper "Skip", Co-owner Stites Ace Hardware
Republican, 60%, 6, 6, Moscow, Schroeder, Gary, Business owner/Outdoor writer
Republican, 59%, 2, 4, Coeur d'Alene, Goedde, John, Property/Casualty Insurance Sales
Republican, 59%, 3, 33, Idaho Falls, Davis, Bart, Attorney
Republican, 59%, 3+2a, 15, Boise, Andreason, John, Retired Director, Legislative Budget Office
Republican, 58%, 1, 21, Kuna, Noble, Jack
Republican, 56%, 1, 23, Buhl, Gannon, Tom
Republican, 56%, 1, 3, Hayden, Bailey, Kent
Republican, 54%, 6, 16, Boise, Ingram, Cecil, Retired, Boise Cascade Corporation
Republican, 53%, 3, 7, Lewiston, Stegner, Joe
Republican, 52%, 1, 5, Coeur d'Alene, Compton, Dick

a (Served 2 terms, Senate 1967-1970)
b (Served 2 terms, Senate 1989-1992)
c (Served 4 terms, Senate 1985-1992)
d (Served 2 terms, House 1999-2002)
e (Served 2 terms, House 1989-1992)
f (Served 3 terms, House 1987-1992)
g (Served 2 terms, House 1990-1994)

sources:
www2.state.id.us/legislat/house.html
www2.state.id.us/legislat/senate.html
www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_leg.htm

Wyoming

Term limits (passed in 1992) take effect in 2004. This enables the FSP to stand a chance against incumbents who've been in either the House and/or Senate for decades! The limit is 6 terms in the House and 3 in the Senate. But that allows long-time Representatives to now serve 12 years in the Senate. By the time the Free Staters are ready for the Senate in 2016, the last old Senator will be term-limited out.
(I'll include occupations when I find them)

House

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist#, County, Last Name, First Name
Democrat, 100%, 6, 39, Sweetwater, Boswell, Christopher
Democrat, 100%, 4, 58, Natrona, Robinson, Ann
Democrat, 100%, 3, 45, Albany, Johnson, Lorna
Democrat, 100%, 2, 60, Sweetwater, Thompson, Bill
Democrat, 66%, 2, 13, Albany, Warren, Jane
Democrat, 65%, 4, 44, Laramie, Esquibel, Floyd
Democrat, 64%, 2, 49, Uinta, Meyer, Saundra
Democrat, 63%, 1, 59, Natrona, Gilmore, Mary
Democrat, 58%, 1, 16, Teton, Jorgensen, Pete
Democrat, 57%, 3, 12, Laramie, Morgan, Layton
Democrat, 55%, 4, 11, Laramie, Reese, Wayne
Democrat, 55%, 1, 48, SW Fremont/Sweetwater, Martin, Marty
Democrat, 53%, 6, 2, Niobrara/Weston/Converse/Goshen, Diercks, Ross
Democrat, 51%, 1, 15, Carbon, Bagby, George
Democrat, 50%, 1, 36, Natrona, Gentile, Liz
Republican, 100%, 11, 5, Goshen/Platte/Converse, Hageman, James
Republican, 100%, 7, 23, Fremont/Teton, Law, Clarene
Republican, 100%, 6, 10, Laramie, Anderson, Rodney, "Pete"
Republican, 100%, 6, 28, S. Big Horn/Hot Springs/SE Park, Baker, Micheal
Republican, 100%, 6, 9, Laramie, Johnson, Wayne
Republican, 100%, 6, 34, Fremont, Philp, Frank
Republican, 100%, 5, 21, Lincoln, Luthi, Randall
Republican, 100%, 5, 52, Campbell, McMurtrey, George
Republican, 100%, 4, 40, Johnson/Sheridan, Osborn, Douglas
Republican, 100%, 4, 7, Laramie, Ross, Tony
Republican, 100%, 3, 35, Natrona, Cohee, Roy
Republican, 100%, 3, 54, Fremont, McOmie, Del
Republican, 100%, 3, 24, Park, Simpson, Colin
Republican, 100%, 3, 27, Washakie, Wostenberg, N.Jane
Republican, 100%, 2, 6, Converse, Edwards, Dave
Republican, 100%, 2, 25, Park/Big Horn, Jones, Alan
Republican, 100%, 2, 55, Fremont, Miller, David
Republican, 100%, 2, 46, Albany, Slater, Jim
Republican, 100%, 1, 3, Converse/Platte, Alden, Deborah
Republican, 100%, 1, 4, Goshen, Buchanan, Edward
Republican, 100%, 1, 47, Carbon/Albany, Bucholz, Kurt
Republican, 100%, 1, 20, Lincoln/Sublette/Sweetwater, Cooper, Stan
Republican, 100%, 1, 31, Campbell, Jansen, Jene
Republican, 100%, 1, 1, Crook/Weston, Semlek, Mark
Republican, 86%, 1, 26, Big Horn/Park, Harvey, Elaine
Republican, 85%, 5, 32, Campbell, Wasserburger, Jeff
Republican, 78%, 4, 50, Park, Childers, Charles, "Pat"
Republican, 75%, 3, 42, Laramie, Illoway, Pete
Republican, 71%, 1, 22, Fremont/Sublette/Teton, Olsen, Monte
Republican, 70%, 2, 19, Uinta, Petersen, Owen
Republican, 64%, 2, 29, Sheridan, Iekel, Jerry
Republican, 64%, 1, 51, Sheridan, Berger, Rosie
Republican, 62%, 1, 37, Natrona, Harshman, Steve
Republican, 61%, 1, 53, Campbell, Latta, Frank
Republican, 61%, 4, 14, Albany, Nicholas, Philip
Republican, 61%, 12, 33, Fremont, Tipton, Harry
Republican, 58%, 3, 30, Sheridan, Landon, Jack Jr.
Republican, 57%, 1, 56, Natrona, Walsh, Tom
Republican, 56%, 1, 38, Natrona, Brechtel, Bob
Republican, 55%, 4, 8, Laramie, Meuli, Larry
Republican, 54%, 2, 57, Natrona, Lockhart, Thomas
Republican, 53%, 5, 17, Sweetwater, Parady, Fred
Republican, 52%, 1, 18, Uinta/Sweetwater, Powers, Mick
Republican, 52%, 1, 43, Laramie, Prosser, Ed
Republican, 51%, 1, 41, Laramie, Hinckley, Becket

Senate

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist#, County, Last Name, First Name
Democrat, 100%, 2+2a, 8, Laramie, Mockler, E. Jayne
Democrat, 100%, 2+2b, 9, Albany, Massie, Mike
Democrat, 100%, 2+3c, 7, Laramie, Sessions, Kathryn
Democrat, 100%, 3, 14, Lincoln/Sublette/Sweetwater/Uinta, Harris, Mark
Democrat, 64%, 2, 13, Sweetwater, Boggs, Tex
Democrat, 59%, 2, 11, Albany/Carbon, Vasey, Bill
Democrat, 58%, 2+1d, 15, Uinta, Decaria, Ken
Democrat, 57%, 3, 6, Laramie, Cathcart, Rich
Democrat, 56%, 2, 12, Sweetwater/Fremont, Job, Rae Lynn
Democrat, 51%, 2.5e, 28, Natrona, Goodenough, Keith
Republican, 100%, 4, 18, Park, Coe, Henry, H. R. "Hank"
Republican, 100%, 2.5f, 20, S Big Horn/Hot Springs/SE Park/Washakie, Geis, Gerald
Republican, 100%, 2.5g, 22, Sheridan/Johnson, Schiffer, John
Republican, 100%, 2+2h, 5, Laramie, Hanes, John
Republican, 100%, 2+3i, 25, Fremont, Case, Cale
Republican, 100%, 1+9j, 23, Campbell, Hines, John
Republican, 100%, 3, 1, Crook/Weston/E Converse/Niobrara/NE Goshen, Barton, Bill
Republican, 100%, 3, 29, Natrona, Hawks, Bill
Republican, 100%, 3, 17, Teton/Fremont, Larson, Grant
Republican, 100%, 3, 3, Goshen/Platte, Meier, Curt
Republican, 100%, 3, 26, Fremont, Peck, Robert
Republican, 100%, 2, 16, Lincoln/Sublette/Teton, Roberts, Delaine
Republican, 100%, 1, 27, Natrona, Barrasso, John
Republican, 100%, 1, 19, Big Horn/E Park, Northrup, Laness
Republican, 71%, 2+2k, 24, Campbell, Erb, Richard, A. Dick"
Republican, 65%, 3, 30, Natrona, Scott, Charles
Republican, 65%, 2, 4, Laramie, Kunz, April, Brimmer
Republican, 62%, 1+2l, 2, Converse/Platte, Anderson, Jim
Republican, 57%, 2+2m, 10, Albany, Devin, Irene
Republican, 57%, 1+4n, 21, Sheridan, Burns, Bruce

a (Elected to two terms in House: 1992, 1994)
b (Elected to two terms in House: 1994, 1996)
c (Elected to three terms in House: 1992, 1994, 1996)
d (Elected to one term in House in 1996)
e (ran in 1992, first elected in 1994)
f (first elected in 1994)
g (first elected in 1994)
h (Elected to two terms in House in 1992,1996)
i (Elected to three terms in House 1992, 1994, 1996)
j (Elected to nine terms in House 1984 through 2000)
k (Elected to two terms in House 1992, 1994)
l (Elected to two terms in House 1996, 1998)
m (Elected to two terms in House 1992, 1994)
n (Elected to four terms in House 1994 through 2000)

Senate elections: odd districts in 2002, even districts in 2000

sources:
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2002/results/02-gsum.htm
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/members/sen.htm
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/members/rep.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2000/results/gen-sen.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/results2.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/96elect/gen-hou.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/94-g.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/92-g.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/90-g.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/88-g.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/86-g.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/84-g.htm
http://soswy.state.wy.us/redistrict/82-g.htm
http://www.csgwest.org/misc/state_legislative_term_limits.html

Vermont

House

It’s not nearly as hopeless as reports made it out to be. Note the margins are what FSP voters could make up so Republicans or Independents could win. I realize Republicans are not libertarians, but they are not Liberals which cause FSP’ers shy away from Vermont. Yet, the total margins to defeat thirty Democrats is only 6,000 votes (add up from bottom of the list). Only 700 FSP votes in the districts at the bottom of this list would give Republicans a majority in the House! The FSP can deliver that margin to at least defeat the Democrats. “Skip” indicates a Democrat or Progressive with a lock on that seat not worth campaigning against. The third column is seats in a district and number of people running. Some districts had six people running for two seats. The highest two win.

Party totals:
67 Republican
66 Democrat
4 Democrat/Republican
6 Republican/Democrat
3 Independent
3 Progressive
1 Populist

In Rutland County the fate of Democrats is as hopeless as Republicans in Chittenden. Competition is often an Independent or Libertarian instead of a Democrat. See the source www.sec.state.vt.us/results/02ghouse.html. No room for bios, but they are here: vermont-elections.org/2003BioSketchWeb.pdf.

County abbreviations: Add-Addison, Chit=Chittenden, Ben=Bennington, Cal=Caledonia, Frank=Franklin, Lam=Lamoille, Orng=Orange, Rut=Rutland, Wash=Washington, Wndhm=Windham, Wndsr=Windsor.

Party, Win% (seats/field), Hi Dem, Rep, Margin, County-District, Last Name, First Name
R, 22.3% (2 of 6), , , 0, Chit-6-2, Kirker, Linda F.
R, 39.1% (2 of 3), , , 0, Add-3, Houston, Connie T.
R, 35.0% (2 of 3), , , 0, Add-3, Clark, Gregory S.
R, 53.4% (1 of 2), , , 0, Add-5, Smith, Harvey T.
R, 97.5% (1 of 1), , , 0, Add-Rut-1, Young, Mark S.
R, 42.1% (2 of 2), , , 0, Ben-2-1, Krawczyk, Joseph L. Jr.
R, 97.3% (1 of 1), , , 0, Ben-4, Livingston, Judith M.
R, 92.0% (1 of 1), , , 0, Ben-Rut-1, Freed, Walter
R, 100 % (1 of 1), , , 0, Cal-1, Larocque, Leigh B.
R, 62.6% (1 of 2), , , 0, Cal-2, Brown, David
R, 50.0% (2 of 2), , , 0, Cal-3, Clark, David T
R, 48.0% (2 of 2), , , 0, Cal-3, Bostic, Donald E.
R, 49.9% (2 of 2), , , 0, Cal-4, Hudson, Cola H.
R, 48.2% (2 of 2), , , 0, Cal-4, Crawford, Howard
R, 66.3% (1 of 2), , , 0, Cal-Wash-1, Larrabee, Steve
R, 55.4% (1 of 1), , , 0, Chit-1-2, Amidon, Ed
R, 29.9% (2 of 4), , , 0, Chit-3-1, Wright, Kurt
R, 100 % (1 of 1), , , 0, Chit-3-7, Mazur, Frank M.
R, 50.0% (1 of 2), , , 0, Chit-4, Robinson, Curran "Spike"
R, 51.6% (1 of 2), , , 0, Chit-5-1, Errecart, Joyce
R, 54.4% (1 of 2), , , 0, Chit-5-2, Schiavone, George
R, 28.9% (2 of 4), , , 0, Chit-6-1, Myers, Linda K
R, 26.9% (2 of 4), , , 0, Chit-6-1, Sweetser, Gene G.
R, 28.9% (2 of 6), , , 0, Chit-7-1, Severance, Malcolm F.
R, 20.9% (2 of 6), , , 0, Chit-7-1, Sweeney,, Joyce S.
R, 29.9% (2 of 4), , , 0, Chit-7-2, Brennan,, Patrick
R, 39.7% (2 of 4), , , 0, Chit-9, Metzger, Doran
R, 34.6% (2 of 4), , , 0, Chit-9, Endres, Kevin J.
R, 64.2% (1 of 2), , , 0, Essex-Cal, Peaslee, Janice L.
R, 60.4% (1 of 3), , , 0, Essex-Cal-Orleans, Johnson, William "Bill"
R, 27.6% (2 of 4), , , 0, Frank-1, Dunsmore, Brian C.
R, 26.2% (2 of 4), , , 0, Frank-1, Branagan, Carolyn Whitney
R, 27.4% (2 of 4), , , 0, Frank-3, Parent, Alan
R, 26.1% (2 of 4), , , 0, Frank-6, McAllister, Norman
R, 98.8% (1 of 1), , , 0, Lam-1, Marron, Richard C.
R, 50.6% (1 of 2), , , 0, Lam-2, Bourdeau, Stephanie A.
R, 97.7% (1 of 1), , , 0, Lam-4, Westman, Richard A.
R, 30.0% (2 of 4), , , 0, Lam-Wash-1, Miller, Warren
R, 32.0% (2 of 4), , , 0, Orng-1, Winters, Philip
R, 31.2% (2 of 4), , , 0, Orng-1, Kennedy, Sylvia R.
R, 23.3% (2 of 4), , , 0, Orng-Add-1, Webster, Stephen W.
R, 57.5% (1 of 2), , , 0, Orng-Cal-1, Otterman, Harvey "Bud"
R, 29.0% (2 of 5), , , 0, Orleans-1, Shaw, Loren T.
R, 26.8% (2 of 5), , , 0, Orleans-1, Sheltra, Nancy J.
R, 31.1% (2 of 5), , , 0, Orleans-2, Kilmartin, Duncan F.
R, 27.7% (2 of 5), , , 0, Orleans-2, Hall, John K.
R, 27.7% (2 of 4), , , 0, Orleans-Cal-1, Bolduc, David
R, 40.7% (2 of 3), , , 0, Rut-1-2, Crowley, Judy Bloomer
R, 39.7% (2 of 3), , , 0, Rut-1-2, Baker, Joseph
R, 40.4% (2 of 3), , , 0, Rut-2, Helm, Robert "Bob"
R, 33.2% (2 of 3), , , 0, Rut-2, Rogers, David
R, 99.1% (1 of 1), , , 0, Rut-4, Mullin, Kevin J.
R, 52.5% (1 of 3), , , 0, Rut-5-1, Duffy, Virginia
R, 57.2% (1 of 2), , , 0, Rut-5-2, DePoy, Tom
R, 96.0% (1 of 1), , , 0, Rut-5-3, Haas, Carl J.
R, 66.6% (1 of 2), , , 0, Rut-5-4, Allaire, David
R, 94.6% (1 of 1), , , 0, Rut-6, Flory, Peg
R, 100 % (1 of 1), , , 0, Rut-7, Wood, Robert H. Jr.
R, 25.3% (2 of 4), , , 0, Wash-2, Donahue, Anne B.
R, 55.0% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wash-3-1, Valliere, Leo M.
R, 52.8% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wash-3-3, Towne, Ruth H.
R, 33.6% (1 of 3), , , 0, Wash-4, Gray, Henry L.
R, 61.7% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wndhm-1, O'Donnell, Patrica
R, 53.4% (2 of 3), , , 0, Wndhm-Ben-1, Bartlett, Philip E.
R, 58.1% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wndsr-1-1, Carey, Erron J.
R, 52.7% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wndsr-4, Adams, Steven C.
R, 63.6% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wndsr-Rut-2, Ketchum, Carroll F.
I, 51.1% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wash-6, Pelham, Tom
I, 96.8% (1 of 1), , , 0, Wndhm-3-2, Pillsbury, Daryl
I, 66.9% (1 of 2), , , 0, Wndsr-5, Anderson, Jack
Prog., 23.9% (2 of 4), , , Skip, Chit-3-3, Hingtgen, Steve
Prog., 31.9% (2 of 4), , , Skip, Chit-3-4, Zuckerman, David
Prog., 27.2% (2 of 4), , , Skip, Chit-3-4, Kiss, Bob
Pop, 53.2% (1 of 2), , , Skip, Wndhm-3-3, Edwards, Sarah R.
R/D, 54.0% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Ben-2-2, Morrissey, Mary A.
R/D, 50.2% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Frank-5, Lavoie, Kathy LaBelle
R/D, 49.9% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Frank-5, Winters, John S.
R/D, 36.5% (1 of 3), , , Skip, Wash-4, Koch, Thomas F.
R/D, 96.2% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Wndhm-Ben-Wndsr-1, Hube, Rick
R/D, 50.7% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Wndsr-6-2, Kainen, Michael
D/R, 56.8% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Ben-2-1, Corcoran, Timothy R. II
D/R, 45.5% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Ben-2-2, Krawczyk, Albert C.
D/R, 50.4% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Wndsr-Orng-2, Masland, Jim
D/R, 97.4% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Orleans-Frank-1, Starr, Robert A.
D, 96.2% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Chit-1-1, Lippert, Bill
D, 33.7% (2 of 4), , , Skip, Chit-3-3, Tracy, John Patrick
D, 49.8% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Chit-3-5, Keogh, Bill
D, 48.7% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Chit-3-5, Donovan, Johannah Leddy
D, 48.4% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Chit-3-6, Cross, George C.
D, 47.5% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Chit-3-6, Atkins, Kenneth W.
D, 40.0% (2 of 3), , , Skip, Frank-2, Allard, George "Ron"
D, 48.3% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Wndsr-Orng-2, Seibert, Ann
D, 97.9% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Rut-8, Waite, Perry D.
D, 95.4% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Wash-3-2, Monti, Harry S.
D, 39.7% (1 of 3), , , Skip, Wash-Chit-1, Vincent, Val
D, 97.9% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Wndhm-3-1, Milkey, Virginia "Gini"
D, 43.8% (2 of 3), , , Skip, Wndhm-4, Obuchowski, Michael J.
D, 35.5% (2 of 3), , , Skip, Wndhm-5, Deen, David L.
D, 37.4% (2 of 3), , , Skip, Wndsr-1-2, Martin, Clint
D, 97.7% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Wndsr-3, Sweaney, Donna
D, 97.9% (1 of 1), , , Skip, Wndsr-6-1, Reese, Michael
D, 48.3% (2 of 2), , , Skip, Wndsr-6-2, Bohi, Lynn
D, 26.8% (2 of 5), 2331, 1151, 1180, Wash-5, Kitzmiller, Warren
D, 32.4% (2 of 5), 2331, 1154, 1177, Wash-5, Brooks, Francis K.
D, 29.7% (2 of 4), 1573, 733, 840, Add-1, Maier, Steven
D, 27.6% (1 of 3), 2138, 1302, 836, Add-4, Sharpe, Dave
D, 27.0% (2 of 4), 2017, 1234, 783, Chit-2, McCullough, Jim
D, 77.2% (1 of 2), 1029, 247, 782, Frank-4, Gervais, Avis
D, 35.2% (2 of 4), 1792, 1056, 736, Wash-2, Grad, Maxine
D, 66.2% (1 of 2), 1492, 762, 730, Wash-1, Connell, Kinny
D, 35.7% (1 of 3), 2076, 1383, 693, Wash-Chit-1, Dostis, Robert
D, 28.2% (2 of 4), 1595, 952, 643, Chit-3-1, Aswad, Bill
D, 72.8% (1 of 2), 997, 370, 627, Lam-3, Nease, Floyd W.
D, 31.0% (1 of 3), 2138, 1551, 587, Add-4, Fisher, Michael
D, 34.3% (2 of 3), 1410, 853, 557, Wndhm-4, Partridge, Carolyn W.
D, 27.9% (2 of 4), 2281, 1727, 554, Chit-8, Hummel, Margaret P.
D, 66.8% (1 of 2), 1048, 512, 536, Chit-3-2, Larson, Mark
D, 65.0% (1 of 2), 1114, 599, 515, Wndsr-Rut-1, Nitka, Alice W.
D, 28.4% (2 of 4), 2281, 1780, 501, Chit-8, Symington, Gaye R.
D, 32.0% (2 of 4), 1148, 720, 428, Frank-3, Keenan, Kathleen C.
D, 34.2% (2 of 3), 1630, 1222, 408, Frank-2, Howrigan, Richard J.
D, 59.5% (1 of 2), 1241, 840, 401, Wash-7, Klein, Tony
D, 25.1% (2 of 6), 1582, 1195, 387, Chit-6-2, Hunt, Peter D.
D, 63.8% (1 of 2), 769, 436, 333, Rut-1-1, Donaghy, Andy
D, 26.3% (2 of 4), 1548, 1240, 308, Grand Isle-Chit-1, Trombley, Ira
D, 57.8% (1 of 2), 1092, 787, 305, Rut-Wndsr-1, Chen, Harry L.
D, 59.8% (1 of 2), 848, 570, 278, Chit-3-9, Audette, Albert "Sonny"
D, 58.8% (1 of 2), 918, 643, 275, Ben-1, Botzow, Bill
D, 30.4% (2 of 4), 1573, 1335, 238, Add-1, Nuovo, Betty
D, 31.4% (2 of 3), 1576, 1339, 237, Wndhm-5, Darrow, Steve
D, 29.2% (2 of 4), 2017, 1793, 224, Chit-2, Peterson, Mary N.
D, 56.9% (1 of 2), 858, 642, 216, Orng-2, Kenyon, Wayne G.
D, 58.2% (1 of 2), 689, 495, 194, Chit-3-10, Head, Helen
D, 25.7% (2 of 4), 1431, 1243, 188, Orng-Add-1, French, Patsy
D, 55.2% (1 of 2), 984, 798, 186, Wndhm-2, Rusten, Bob
D, 55.2% (1 of 2), 937, 757, 180, Rut-3, Fallar, Gail
D, 32.6% (2 of 3), 1760, 1588, 172, Wndsr-1-2, Emmons, Alice M.
D, 50.4% (1 of 3), 930, 759, 171, Wndhm-6, Marek, Richard
D, 27.3% (2 of 4), 1428, 1267, 161, Chit-7-2, Dakin,, Maureen P.
D, 54.7% (1 of 2), 848, 697, 151, Wndsr-Orng-1, McLaughlin, Rosemary "Rozo"
D, 53.7% (1 of 2), 1012, 867, 145, Chit-6-3, Heath, Martha
D, 28.0% (2 of 4), 1287, 1157, 130, Frank-6, Perry, Albery Joseph
D, 53.2% (1 of 2), 940, 826, 114, Chit-3-8, Pugh, Ann
D, 52.6% (1 of 2), 743, 659, 84, Ben-5, Molloy, Lawrence
D, 26.8% (2 of 4), 1548, 1467, 81, Grand Isle-Chit-1, Johnson, Mitzi
D, 24.8% (2 of 4), 1310, 1267, 43, Lam-Wash-1, Smith, Shap
D, 51.0% (2 of 3), 852, 818, 34, Wndsr-2, Shand, Ernest
D, 50.6% (1 of 2), 1047, 1021, 26, Add-2, Jewett, Willem
D, 50.6% (2 of 2), 883, 861, 22, Ben-3, Miller, Alice
D, 24.7% (2 of 4), 1382, 1366, 16, Orleans-Cal-1, Rodgers, John S.

Senate

There is a strategy to helping Republicans gain the a majority. First: they generally are more liberty-minded than Democrats (yes, I know they are not libertarians, but most are at least not socialist, communitarian, authoritarian, statists. Exceptions where a Democrat is more liberty-minded than an opposing Republican need to be identified so the wrong person is not supported). Second: By helping Republicans win, they may be more amenable to helping liberty because withdrawal of support could return seats to the Democrats who are more liberty-minded. This is thus a more positive approach than the LP practice of running a candidate against a Republican in an effort to get them to become more liberty-minded or they lose. Unfortunately that throws the election to a worse Democrat. Help the Republican get elected first, then they may help liberty.

The Democrats control the senate by 19 to 11 or 18 to 12 depending on how you view the single D/R. Converting five seats to Republican would change that control. Below is an analysis of the minimum number of new voters needed to effect that change -- based on the 2002 election. In Senate races for multiple seats in a district the voters have one vote for each seat. Note that 2,819 new voters could have converted both Addison seats; 1,666 new voters could have converted both Franklin seats; 182 in Lamoille and 522 in Orange would have gained two more. Thus only 5,189 new voters could have converted six seats and changed the control of the Senate!

In Chittenden County where the district is six times as populous as a single seat district, 51,607 voters each voted for six candidates out of a field of eighteen (six Republicans, six Democrats, five Libertarians, and one Independent). One Republican got more votes than three winning Democrats and placed third. The seventh place finisher was a Democrat who barely lost -- to Democrat Ginny Lyons. An extra 2,900 Free State voters could have enabled Republican Kate Purcell to beat Ginny Lyons and win 6th place and get a Senate seat. An extra 4,666 new voters could have enabled Don Brunell to beat Hinda Miller and Kate to beat Ginny thus displacing two Democrats. For a grand sweep in Democrat Chittenden county, only 9,231 new Free Staters (or converted non-voters) voting for each of the six Republicans would have displaced all the Democrats!

For the least new votes needed to replace one Democrat with one Republican, I’ve paired the strongest losing Republican with the weakest winning Democrat, then the next strongest losing Republican with the next weakest winning Democrat. See the below table where the first three columns are the 2002 results, the second set of three columns are the least effort pairings, the last set of three columns shows margins if strongest were paired with strongest. The total extra votes needed are the same in each case, but with the second set the Republicans gain two seats with less additional votes.

CHITTENDEN

Party	Candidate	Votes	Party	Candidate	Votes	Margin	Party	Candidate	Votes	Margin
D	James Leddy	26,527	R	Bill Shahady	12,898	13,629	R	Kate Purcell	19,229	7,298
D	Jim Condos	25,025	R	Lynn Shepard	14,144	10,881	R	Donald Brunelle	17,907	7,118
R	Diane Snelling	23,325
D	Janet Munt	23,138	R	Scot Shumski	14,800	8,338	R	Scot Shumski	14,800	8,338
D	Hinda Miller	22,572	R	Donald Brunelle	17,907	4,665	R	Lynn Shepard	14,144	8,428
D	Ginny Lyons	22,128	R	Kate Purcell	19,229	2,899	R	Bill Shahady	12,898	9,230
D	Art Hogan	21,068	40,412	40,412
R	Kate Purcell	19,229
R	Donald Brunelle	17,907
R	Scot Shumski	14,800
R	Lynn Shepard	14,144
R	Bill Shahady	12,898
I	Bruce Cunningham	5,286
L	Brendan Kinney	2,662
L	Christopher Coolidge	2,133
L	Mark Winer	1,959
L	Sheldon Katz	1,730
L	Spencer Sherman	1,614

P, T, Win% , seats/field, TurnOut, Win #, Opp.#, Margin, District, Last Name, First Name
D, 1, 56%, (2 of 4), 16,767, 9,315, 6,559, 2,756, Addison, Ayer, Claire
D, 2+2, 50%, (2 of 4), 16,767, 8,384, 5,566, 2,818, Addison, Gossens, Gerry
D, 6, 49%, (2 of 4), 14,745, 7,229, 4,556, 2,673, Bennington, Sears, Richard
D, 1, 43%, (6 of 18), 51,607, 22,128, 19,229, 2,899, Chittenden, Lyons, Virginia "Ginny"
D, 1, 44%, (6 of 18), 51,607, 22,572, 17,907, 4,665, Chittenden, Miller, Hinda
D, 8, 45%, (6 of 18), 51,607, 23,138, 14,800, 8,338, Chittenden, Munt, Janet
D, 2, 48%, (6 of 18), 51,607, 25,025, 14,144, 10,881, Chittenden, Condos, James
D, 3, 51%, (6 of 18), 51,607, 26,527, 12,898, 13,629, Chittenden, Leddy, James
D, 1, 39%, (2 of 6), 14,380, 5,645, 5,383, 262, Franklin, Collins, Donald "Don"
D, 5, 44%, (2 of 6), 14,380, 6,365, 4,700, 1,665, Franklin, Kittell, Sara Branon
D, 10+2, 65%, (1 of 2), 8,087, 5,225, 2,698, 2,527, Grand Isle, Mazza, Richard
D, 6, 50%, (1 of 2), 8,312, 4,126, 3,945, 181, Lamoille, Bartlett, Susan
D, 2+6, 56%, (1 of 2), 8,264, 4,618, 4,097, 521, Orange, MacDonald, Mark
D, 4, 45%, (3 of 10), 24,925, 11,213, 8,982, 2,231, Washington, Cummings, Ann
D, 1, 47%, (2 of 5), 16,128, 7,645, 5,578, 2,067, Windham, Gander, Roderick
D, 1, 49%, (2 of 5), 16,128, 7,951, 4,851, 3,100, Windham, White, Jeanette
D, 1+4, 53%, (3 of 5), 21,862, 11,543, 7,269, 4,274, Windsor, Dunne, Matt
D, 6, 53%, (3 of 5), 21,862, 11,692, 5,375, 6,317, Windsor, Welch, Peter
D/R, 2, 57%, (3 of 5), 21,862, 12,446, 0, 0, Windsor, Campbell, John
R, 1, 43%, (2 of 4), 14,745, 6,351, 5,776, 575, Bennington, Shepard, Mark
R, 6, 73%, (2 of 2), 13,107, 9,610, 0, 9,610, Caledonia, Ide, Robert
R, 6, 67%, (2 of 2), 13,107, 8,830, 0, 8,830, Caledonia, Canns, Julius
R, 2, 45%, (6 of 18), 51,607, 23,325, 21,068, 2,257, Chittenden, Snelling, Diane
R, 5, 74%, (2 of 2), 13,408, 9,900, 0, 9,900, Essex-Orleans, Greenwood, James
R, 12, 71%, (2 of 2), 13,408, 9,570, 0, 9,570, Essex-Orleans, Illuzzi, Vincent
R, 4, 61%, (3 of 6), 21,401, 13,029, 4,911, 8,118, Rutland, Bloomer, John
R, 4, 52%, (3 of 6), 21,401, 11,058, 6,296, 4,762, Rutland, Maynard, Hull
R, 3+1, 51%, (3 of 6), 21,401, 10,975, 8,138, 2,837, Rutland, Crowley, John
R, 18, 52%, (3 of 10), 24,925, 13,017, 6,822, 6,195, Washington, Doyle, William
R, 2, 44%, (3 of 10), 24,925, 10,849, 8,450, 2,399, Washington, Scott, Philip
Note: "D/R" means that the candidate won both primaries.

Sources:
http://www.politicsvt.com/
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htm
http://www.sec.state.vt.us/seek/database.htm
http://vermont-elections.org/2003BioSketchWeb.pdf
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/2002gecand.htm
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/02Redistricting/Act151_Senate_Map.pdf

North Dakota

Summary: much more accessible than one would have thought -- especially in the House.

House

Even districts generally were elected in 2000, Odd in 2002. There were lots of exceptions -- some seats being up every two years due to redistricting or whatever. Generally four ran for two seats (some were 2 for 2 (the first two on the list), and one was 3 for 2 (the thride on the list)). Thus the rest generally were four-way races for two seats. Note that the margins of victory were, in many cases, very thin -- even for multi-term incumbents. Also, regarding the number of terms, Any with more than 3 or 4 terms could have had more terms but the sources below only went back to the 1996 election. Where the number of terms is, for instance, 2+1 it means 2 in that chamber and one term in the other (there was one instance where a person went from Senate to House).

Party, Win%, Terms, Residence, District#, Last Name, First Name
Democrat, 57.51%, 3, Rolette, #09, Merle, Boucher
Democrat, 53.82%, 1, Forman, #26, Bill, Amerman
Democrat, 42.49%, 1, Mylo, #09, Tracy, Boe
Democrat, 34.38%, 2, Grand Forks, #18, Lonny, Winrich
Democrat, 33.99%, 3, Grand Forks, #18, Eliot, Glassheim
Democrat, 30.13%, 3, Blanchard, #20, Ole, Aarsvold
Democrat, 29.56%, 1, Wahpeton, #25, Clark, Williams
Democrat, 28.60%, 2, Jamestown, #12, Joe, Kroeber
Democrat, 28.57%, 3, Fargo, #21, Sally M., Sandvig
Democrat, 28.53%, 3, Mott, #31, James, Kerzman
Democrat, 28.50%, 1, Parshall, #04, Kenton, Onstad
Democrat, 28.44%, 3, Rutland, #26, Pam, Gulleson
Democrat, 27.95%, 1, Selfridge, #31, Rod, Froelich
Democrat, 27.81%, 2, Wahpeton, #25, Bruce, Eckre
Democrat, 27.72%, 2, Wimbledon, #24, Phillip, Mueller
Democrat, 27.65%, 3, Fargo, #11, Scot, Kelsh
Democrat, 27.16%, 2, Ryder, #04, John, Warner
Democrat, 27.16%, 1, Newburg, #06, Bob, Hunskor
Democrat, 27.00%, 2, Jamestown, #12, Lyle, Hanson
Democrat, 26.80%, 3, Fargo, #11, Mary, Ekstrom
Democrat, 26.78%, 3, Minot, #05, Elwood, Thorpe
Democrat, 26.52%, 2, Valley City, #24, Ralph, Metcalf
Democrat, 26.13%, 3, Grand Forks, #43, Lois, Delmore
Democrat, 25.97%, 3, Maddock, #07, Arlo E., Schmidt
Democrat, 25.60%, 3, Buxton, #20, Carol A., Niemeier
Democrat, 25.41%, 1, Grand Forks, #17, Louise, Potter
Democrat, 25.27%, 2, Ray, #02, Dorvan, Solberg
Democrat, 25.20%, 1, Fargo, #21, Steven L., Zaiser
Republican, 55.13%, 3, Bismarck, #47, George, Keiser
Republican, 50.34%, 3, Bowman, #39, Keith, Kempenich
Republican, 49.66%, 3, Arnegard, #39, David, Drovdal
Republican, 44.87%, 2, Bismarck, #47, Lawrence R., Klemin
Republican, 34.56%, 3, West Fargo, #13, Kim, Koppelman
Republican, 33.58%, 3, Fargo, #41, Al, Carlson
Republican, 33.43%, 2, Taylor, #36, C. B., Haas
Republican, 33.04%, 3, Fargo, #46, Kathy, Hawken
Republican, 32.45%, 1, West Fargo, #13, Alon, Wieland
Republican, 31.94%, 3, Fargo, #41, Bette B., Grande
Republican, 31.86%, 3, Gilby, #19, Thomas T., Brusegaard
Republican, 31.84%, 3, Minot, #40, Clara Sue, Price
Republican, 31.82%, 2, Dickinson, #37, Nancy, Johnson
Republican, 31.71%, 2, Underwood, #08, Jeff, Delzer
Republican, 31.45%, 1, Fargo, #46, Jim, Kasper
Republican, 31.12%, 2, Mandan, #34, RaeAnn G., Kelsch
Republican, 31.01%, 2, Mandan, #34, Todd, Porter
Republican, 31.00%, 3, Fargo, #45, Rick, Berg
Republican, 30.91%, 2, Carrington, #29, Chet, Pollert
Republican, 30.87%, 3, Bismarck, #30, Ron, Carlisle
Republican, 30.64%, 1, Linton, #28, Ray H., Wikenheiser
Republican, 30.52%, 3, Cando, #15, Eugene, Nicholas
Republican, 30.29%, 3+1, Grafton, #16, Gil, Herbel
Republican, 30.28%, 1, Northwood, #19, Gerald, Uglem
Republican, 30.03%, 3, Hurdsfield, #14, Robin, Weisz
Republican, 29.96%, 3, Williston, #01, Earl, Rennerfeldt
Republican, 29.68%, 1, Grand Forks, #42, Amy, Warnke
Republican, 29.68%, 2, Fargo, #44, Byron, Clark
Republican, 29.49%, 1, Fargo, #27, Ron, Iverson
Republican, 29.43%, 2, Minot, #40, Matthew M., Klein
Republican, 29.27%, 3, Leonard, #22, Wesley R., Belter
Republican, 29.11%, 3, Pettibone, #14, Duane, DeKrey
Republican, 29.09%, 1, Bismarck, #35, Bob, Martinson
Republican, 29.06%, 3, Minot, #03, Janet, Wentz
Republican, 28.63%, 3, Hazen, #33, Pat, Galvin
Republican, 28.53%, 3, Grand Forks, #17, Ken, Svedjan
Republican, 28.49%, 2, Fargo, #44, Blair, Thoreson
Republican, 28.30%, 3, Devils Lake, #15, Dennis, Johnson
Republican, 28.10%, 1, Montpelier, #29, Craig, Headland
Republican, 28.04%, 3, Kenmare, #06, Glen, Froseth
Republican, 28.04%, 2, Finley, #23, William R., Devlin
Republican, 27.96%, 2, Cooperstown, #23, Dale C., Severson
Republican, 27.86%, 1, Minot, #38, Dan J., Ruby
Republican, 27.72%, 2, Williston, #01, Mike, Norland
Republican, 27.70%, 1, New Salem, #33, Gary, Kreidt
Republican, 27.66%, 1, Grafton, #16, Joyce, Kingsbury
Republican, 27.35%, 1, Minot, #38, Larry, Bellew
Republican, 27.33%, 3, Grand Forks, #43, Darrell D., Nottestad
Republican, 27.30%, 3, Minot, #03, Andrew, Maragos
Republican, 27.22%, 3, Wolford, #07, Jon O., Nelson
Republican, 27.22%, 2, Venturaia, #28, William E., Kretschmar
Republican, 27.14%, 1, Grand Forks, #42, Mike, Grosz
Republican, 26.99%, 3, Fargo, #45, LeRoy G., Bernstein
Republican, 26.97%, 1, Fargo, #27, Randy, Boehning
Republican, 26.96%, 3, Minot, #05, Mike, Timm
Republican, 26.67%, 1, Bismarck, #08, Dwight, Wrangham
Republican, 26.65%, 1, Bismarck, #32, Mark A., Dosch
Republican, 26.62%, 1, Bismarck, #35, Margaret, Sitte
Republican, 26.52%, 1, Dickinson, #36, Frank, Klein
Republican, 26.38%, 2, Tioga, #02, Bob, Skarphol
Republican, 26.32%, 1, Cavalier, #10, Wayne W., Tieman
Republican, 26.15%, 1, Bismarck, #30, Dave, Weiler
Republican, 25.76%, 1, Bismarck, #32, Lisa, Meier
Republican, 25.08%, 3, Dickinson, #37, Francis J., Wald
Republican, 24.70%, 2, Osnabrock, #10, David, Monson
Republican, 27.42%, 1, , #22, Bill, Pietsch (Resigned 12/16/02)

Senate

Even districts generally were elected in 2000, Odd in 2002. Nearly all of these were two-person races. The last on the list was a three-way with an independent. Again, as with New Hampshire, the House is far more "accessible" than the Senate (because of high margin, multi-term entrenched Senators). Where the number of terms is, for instance, 2+1 it means 2 in that chamber and one term in the other.

Party, Win%, Terms, Residence, District#, Last Name, First Name
Democrat, 100.00%, 2, Belcourt, #09, Dennis, Bercier
Democrat, 100.00%, 2, Valley City, #24, Larry, Robinson
Democrat, 63.36%, 2, Fargo, #11, Tim, Mathern
Democrat, 61.60%, 2, Lansford, #06, David P., O'Connell
Democrat, 61.41%, 2, Hankinson, #26, Joel C., Heitkamp
Democrat, 58.25%, 2, Fargo, #21, Carolyn, Nelson
Democrat, 56.49%, 2, Mayville, #20, Elroy N., Lindaas
Democrat, 56.35%, 1+1, Grand Forks, #18, Linda, Christenson
Democrat, 55.92%, 1, Towner, #07, Ryan M., Taylor
Democrat, 55.44%, 1, Minnewaukan, #23, Michael A., Every
Democrat, 54.13%, 1+2, Palermo, #04, Ronald, Nichols
Democrat, 52.42%, 2, Regent, #31, Aaron, Krauter
Democrat, 52.14%, 2, Grafton, #16, Harvey, Tallackson
Democrat, 51.66%, 1, Minot, #05, Tom, Seymour
Democrat, 51.57%, 1, Grand Forks, #42, Michael, Polovitz
Democrat, 51.11%, 1+2, Eldridge, #29, April, Fairfield
Republican, 100.00%, 2, Bowman, #39, Bill L., Bowman
Republican, 71.53%, 2, West Fargo, #13, Judy, Lee
Republican, 71.28%, 2+1, Dickinson, #37, Rich, Wardner
Republican, 70.37%, 2, Fessenden, #14, Jerry, Klein
Republican, 70.31%, 2, Fargo, #41, Tony S., Grindberg
Republican, 66.40%, 2, Williston, #01, Stanley W., Lyson
Republican, 66.09%, 2, Mandan, #34, Dwight, Cook
Republican, 64.86%, 2, Taylor, #36, Herb, Urlacher
Republican, 63.02%, 1, Lehr, #28, Robert S., Erbele
Republican, 62.96%, 2, Bismarck, #47, Ralph L., Kilzer
Republican, 62.93%, 2, Bismarck, #35, Ed, Kringstad
Republican, 62.56%, 2, Minot, #40, Karen K., Krebsbach
Republican, 62.41%, 2, Hazen, #33, Randel, Christmann
Republican, 62.38%, 1+2, Minot, #38, Ben, Tollefson
Republican, 60.86%, 2, Fargo, #46, Tom, Fischer
Republican, 60.46%, 2, Bismarck, #30, Bob, Stenehjem
Republican, 59.86%, 1, Casselton, #22, Gary A., Lee
Republican, 59.27%, 2, Larimore, #19, Duane, Mutch
Republican, 59.19%, 2, Minot, #03, Randy A., Schobinger
Republican, 58.29%, 2, Grand Forks, #17, Ray, Holmberg
Republican, 57.63%, 2, Underwood, #08, Layton, Freborg
Republican, 57.06%, 2, Jamestown, #12, Dave, Nething
Republican, 56.38%, 2, Devils Lake, #15, John T., Traynor
Republican, 55.48%, 2, Crosby, #02, John M., Andrist
Republican, 55.25%, 1, Fargo, #27, Richard, Brown
Republican, 54.25%, 2, Fargo, #44, Tim, Flakoll
Republican, 52.76%, 2, Grand Forks, #43, Duaine C., Espegard
Republican, 52.05%, 1, Wahpeton, #25, Russell T., Thane
Republican, 51.29%, 1, Fargo, #45, John O., Syverson
Republican, 50.51%, 1, Bismarck, #32, Dick, Dever
Republican, 45.54%, 1, Cavalier, #10, Thomas L., Trenbeath

sources:
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/senate/members/names-roster.html
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/house/members/name-roster.html
http://www.state.nd.us/sec/Elections/2002/General/election-results/
http://www.state.nd.us/sec/Elections/2000unofficial/2000officialgeneralresults110700.htm
Official General Election Results, 1998
Official General Election Results, 1996
http://www.state.nd.us/sec/Elections/electionresultsmnu.htm
http://www.state.nd.us/sec/Elections/Elections.htm

New Hampshire

The following data is sorted by county and then by district #. To determine how many "at large" seats are in a district, simply count up how many lines have the same district number (how many legislators serve the same district). There are only a few "one-liners" where one legislator serves one district. The example cited at the top of this page is District #86 in Rockingham county which has seven "at large" legislative seats for which sixteen people ran.
http://www.state.nh.us/sos/general2002/rockinghamrep.htm

Note the state in which these legislators were born. Also note that one quarter (101 of 400) of the New Hampshire House was born in Massachusetts.

House

Party, Win%, terms, District, Dist.#, Last Name, First Name, Born, Occupation
R, 52%, 1, Belknap, 29, Ahern, Omer, NH, Lawyer
R, 49%, 4, Belknap, 29, Laflam, Robert, NH, Military (Col)
R, 48%, 4, Belknap, 29, Wendelboe, Fran, NY, Real Estate Investments
R, 53%, 5, Belknap, 30, Dewhirst, Glenn, MA, Funeral Director
R, 59%, 1, Belknap, 30, Fitzgerald, James, ME, Athletic Director/Football Coach
R, 57%, 2, Belknap, 30, Flanders, Donald, NH, Insurance Agt
R, 57%, 12, Belknap, 30, Holbrook, Robert, NH, Bank Executive
R, 54%, 6, Belknap, 30, Lawton, David, NH, Business Mgr /Publishing
R, 53%, 2, Belknap, 30, Nedeau, Stephen, NH, Law Enforcement
R, 52%, 8, Belknap, 30, Rice, Thomas, MA, Mechanic
R, 55%, 1, Belknap, 31, Allen, Janet, NH, Homemaker
R, 54%, 7, Belknap, 31, Bartlett, Gordon, MA, na
R, 53%, 2, Belknap, 31, Boyce, Laurie, NE, Homemaker
R, 49%, 2, Belknap, 31, Clark, Charles, NH, Financial Services Rep
R, 56%, 4, Belknap, 31, Pilliod, James, NY, Physician
R, 52%, 3, Belknap, 31, Russell, David, NH, Grocer
R, 49%, 5, Belknap, 31, Thomas, John, MA, Business & Industrial Consultant
R, 49%, 6f, Belknap, 31, Whalley, Michael, MA, Owner, Small Business
R+D, 68%, 1, Carroll, 04, Brown, Carolyn, NH, Tailor
R+D, 66%, 11, Carroll, 04, Chandler, Gene, ME, Self-employed, Real Estate
R, 56%, 15, Carroll, 04, Dickinson, Howard, NY, Forester
R, 56%, 6, Carroll, 04, Mock, Henry, NH, Govt-St F&G, Chief Conservation Ofcr
R, 56%, 6, Carroll, 05, Philbrick, Donald, NH, Military, Electronic Tech Superintendent
R, 50%, 4, Carroll, 06, Babson, David, MA, Sales
R, 50%, 1, Carroll, 06, McConkey, Mark, OH, Management
R, 49%, 1, Carroll, 06, Merrow, Harry, NH, Engineer
R, 62%, 1, Carroll, 07, Derby, Mark, NH, Lawyer
R, 61%, 1, Carroll, 07, Hatch, Paul, NH, Motion Picture Theater Owner, Radio Broadcasting
R+D, 67%, 5, Carroll, 07, Patten, Betsey, MA, Clerical, Technical typist, recording secretary
R, 61%, 2, Carroll, 07, Stevens , Stanley, NH, Police Chief
R, 50%, 1, Carroll, 08, Kenney, Bettie, MA, Restaurant Owner and Antique Dealer
R+D, 63%, 4, Carroll, 08, Olimpio, J Lisbeth, NH, Real Estate
na, 57%, na, Cheshire, 28, Manning, Joseph, ,
na, 45%, na, Cheshire, 27, Dexter, Judson, ,
D, 45%, 3, Cheshire, 24, Batchelder, Robert, CA, Aerospace Co - Training Specialist
D, 47%, 8, Cheshire, 24, Eaton, Daniel, NH, na
R, 46%, 4, Cheshire, 24, Laurent, John, NJ, Government-US Postal Service Supvr
D, 48%, 4, Cheshire, 24, Pratt, John, NY, Business Executive
D, 49%, 1, Cheshire, 25, Dunn, James, MA, Teacher, Humanities & English
D, 52%, 2, Cheshire, 25, Espiefs, Peter, GRE, Attorney
R, 40%, 1, Cheshire, 25, Fish, Douglas, NH, Police Officer / Sheriff
D, 48%, 5, Cheshire, 25, Meader, David, NH, Convenience Store Clerk
D, 52%, 5, Cheshire, 25, Robertson, Timothy, VT, na
D, 49%, 2, Cheshire, 25, Slack, Pamela, NH, Human Services
D, 51%, 2, Cheshire, 25, Weed, Charles, IL, Professor
D, 44%, 3, Cheshire, 26, Mitchell, McKim, VT, na
D, 44%, 1, Cheshire, 26, Parkhurst, Henry, na, Teacher
D, 45%, 8, Cheshire, 26, Pratt, Irene, NH, Nurse
D, 40%, 6, Cheshire, 26, Richardson, Barbara, PA, Social Worker
R, 47%, 6, Cheshire, 26, Smith, Edwin, VT, Real Estate & Insurance Sales
D, 50%, 2, Cheshire, 27, Allen, Peter, MA, Forest Ecologist
R, 44%, 2, Cheshire, 27, Liebl, George, MA, Insurance Agent
D, 48%, 1, Cheshire, 27, Tilton, Anna, NY, Education - Admin Assist
R, 56%, 9, Cheshire, 28, Hunt, John, PA, Self-employed
R, 55%, 6, Cheshire, 28, Royce, H Charles, NH, Teacher, Science
D, 36%, 1, Cheshire, 28, Webber, Amy, MN, Professor, English & American Lit
R+D, 74%, 1, Coos, 01, King, Frederick, VT, County Administrator
R+D, 78%, 2, Coos, 01, Stohl, Eric, NH, Govt-St of NH, F&G Dept, Conservation Ofcr
R, 51%, 1, Coos, 02, Brady, Mark, DC, Consultant, business
R, 50%, 13, Coos, 02, Guay, Lawrence, NH, Paper Mill
R, 48%, 7, Coos, 02, Pratt, Leighton, CT, County Agric. Agent
R+D, 55%, 2, Coos, 02, Richardson, Herbert, NH, Produce Mg.
R, 45%, 4, Coos, 02, Tholl, John, MA, Govt-St of NH -St Police
D, 49%, 6, Coos, 03, Mears, Edgar, DC, Millwright
D, 45%, 1f, Coos, 03, Poulin, Richard, NH, Retailer, Real Estate
D, 56%, 1, Coos, 03, Theberge, Robert, NH, Govt-City Manager
R, 51%, 3, Coos, 03, Woodward, David, CT, Property Assessor
R+D, 84%, 6, Grafton, 09, Eaton, Stephanie, NH, Cartographer/Teacher
R+D, 68%, 3, Grafton, 09, Gilman, G Michael, MA, Publisher / Evangelist
D+R, 84%, 5, Grafton, 10, Densmore, Edward, MA, Bookseller
R+D, 67%, 1, Grafton, 11, Gionet, Edmond, NH, Construction
R, 60%, 1, Grafton, 11, Sorg, Gregory, NY, Lawyer
R, 73%, 6, Grafton, 12, Ham, Bonnie, NH, Guardian
R+D, 66%, 2, Grafton, 13, Giuda, Robert, NY, Airline Pilot
R, 56%, 1, Grafton, 13, Ingbretson, Paul, CO, Artist
RD, 72%, 4, Grafton, 14, Alger, John, MA, Engineer & Mgr
R, 53%, 2, Grafton, 14, Barker, Robert, MA, Military
D, 49%, 2, Grafton, 15, Cooney, Mary, NY, Co-owner, Concord Motorsport
D, 55%, 2, Grafton, 15, Naro, Debra, NH, Education
R, 49%, 1, Grafton, 16, Dorsett, Andrew, FL, Two part-time jobs
R, 49%, 1, Grafton, 16, Maybeck, Margie, TX, Banking - current, Govt-US, PO
R, 55%, 2, Grafton, 16, Williams, Burton, MA, Lumber and Building Material Dealer
D, 53%, 2, Grafton, 17, Benn, Bernard, NJ, Architect
D, 52%, 1, Grafton, 17, Bleyler, Ruth, NY, Scientist, Environmental
D, 51%, 1, Grafton, 17, Diamond, Estelle, NY, Teacher, High School
D, 56%, 8, Grafton, 17, Nordgren, Sharon, IL, na
D, 55%, 2, Grafton, 17, Scovner, Nancy, OH, na
D, 53%, 2, Grafton, 17, Sokol, Hilda, MO, Professor, Physiology
D, 52%, 1, Grafton, 17, Solomon, Peter, NH, Forest and Land Protection
R, 47%, 4, Grafton, 18, Akins, Ralph, OH, Architectural Firm, Project Mgr
D, 51%, 4, Grafton, 18, Almy, Susan, NY, Agricultural Researcher
R, 49%, 3, Grafton, 18, Dudley, Terri, NH, Radio host
D, 52%, 1, Grafton, 18, Hammond, Lee, NJ, Educator/Counselor
na, 51%, na, Strafford, 67, Heon, Richard, ,
na, 44%, na, Strafford, 67, Brown, Julie, ,
R, 40%, 2, Strafford, 67, Albert, Russell, MA, na
R, 37%, 1, Strafford, 67, Bemis, Alan, ME, na
D+R, 49%, 5, Strafford, 67, Berube, Roger, NH, na
D, 40%, 6, Strafford, 67, Callaghan, Frank, nh, na
D, 39%, 1, Strafford, 67, Creteau, Irene, na, Real Estate Sales
R, 40%, 6, Strafford, 67, Dunlap, Patricia, NH, Banking, Customer Relations Rep
D, 39%, 5, Strafford, 67, Grassie, Anne, NH, Program Director
R, 42%, 11, Strafford, 67, Keans, Sandra, NH, Community Volunteer
R, 44%, 1, Strafford, 67, Newton, Clifford, NH, Publisher
D+R, 41%, 1, Strafford, 67, Rollo, Deanna, na, Utility-Telephone, Bell Atlanti
D+R, 45%, 6, Strafford, 67, Snyder, Clair, MA, Accountant
R, 42%, 2, Strafford, 67, Twombly, James, MA, Military
R, 48%, 4, Strafford, 68, Bickford, David, NH, Tool & Die Maker
R, 44%, 1, Strafford, 68, Campbell, W Packy , NH, Developer/Realtor
R, 41%, 1, Strafford, 68, Cataldo, Sam, MA, Computer Consultant/Instructor
R, 47%, 1, Strafford, 68, Easson, Timothy, TN, Hotel Auditing Clerk
R, 43%, 2, Strafford, 68, Harrington, Michael, MA, Engineer
D, 38%, 3, Strafford, 68, Johnson, Nancy, NJ, Self-employed
R, 41%, 11, Strafford, 68, Musler, George, MA, na
D, 38%, 3f, Strafford, 68, Vachon, Dennis, NH, Lawyer
D, 41%, 1, Strafford, 69, Hofemann, Roland, MA, Military
D, 43%, 7, Strafford, 69, Knowles, William, NY, Insurance Branch Mgr
R, 49%, 4, Strafford, 69, Woods, Phyllis, MA, Office Manager
D, 50%, 1, Strafford, 70, Schmidt, Peter, IL, Teacher
D, 51%, 1, Strafford, 70, Taylor, Katherine, L., NH, Student
D, 50%, 4, Strafford, 70, Taylor, Kathleen, N., NY, na
na, 49%, na, Strafford, 71, Hollinger, Jeffrey, ,
D+R, 54%, 6, Strafford, 71, Pelletier, Arthur, NH, na
R, 49%, 1, Strafford, 71, Scott, David, na, na
D+R, 65%, 5, Strafford, 72, Kaen, Naida, MI, Realtor
D, 49%, 1, Strafford, 72, Miller, Joseph, MA, Physician
D, 53%, 1, Strafford, 72, Rous, Emma, MA, Education
D+R, 65%, 4, Strafford, 72, Smith, Marjorie, NY, Consultant
D, 52%, 3, Strafford, 72, Spang, Judith, RI, Planner
D+R, 70%, 9, Strafford, 72, Wall, Janet, NH, na
D, 55%, 7, Sullivan, 19, Burling, Peter, DC, na
R, 44%, 3, Sullivan, 19, Jones, Constance, NH, Insurance
R, 54%, 11, Sullivan, 20, Flint, Gordon, NH, na
D, 45%, 2, Sullivan, 20, Franklin, Peter, MA, Marital Mediator
R, 57%, 2, Sullivan, 20, Rodeschin, Beverly, MI, na
R+D, 90%, 4, Sullivan, 21, Leone, Richard, NH, Education- School Admin
na, 69%, na, Sullivan, 22, Allison, David, ,
D+R, 70%, 2, Sullivan, 22, Cloutier, John, NH, Security Officer
D+R, 79%, 3, Sullivan, 22, Donovan, Thomas, NH, Administrator, Human Services
D+R, 65%, 2, Sullivan, 22, Harris, Joseph, IN, College Professor - Physics
D+R, 68%, 2, Sullivan, 22, Harris, Sandra, MA, Counselor/Asst Professor
D, 54%, 3, Sullivan, 23, Ferland, Brenda, NH, Homemaker
D+R, 72%, 3, Sullivan, 23, Phinizy, James, CA, Real Estate
R, 57%, 10, Merrimack, 32, Jacobson, Alf, WA, Professor
R, 46%, 1, Merrimack, 32, McCormick, Tom, NY, Management
R, 46%, 3, Merrimack, 33, Ouellette, Robert, NH, Self-employed
D, 51%, 2, Merrimack, 33, Perkins, Randy, NH, Utility, PSNH Field Meter Foreman
R, 49%, 1, Merrimack, 33, Reed, Dennis, NH, Self-employed
R, 45%, 2, Merrimack, 34, Colcord, J D, NH, Military
R, 46%, 2, Merrimack, 34, Currier, David, MA, Chairman
D, 48%, 5, Merrimack, 34, French, Barbara, MA, Nurse
D, 46%, 1, Merrimack, 34, Hamm, Christine, WV, Writer/Journalist
R, 42%, 4, Merrimack, 34, Kennedy, Richard, NY, na
D, 43%, 6, Merrimack, 34, Owen, Derek, na, Farmer, Sm Bus owner
D, 41%, 2, Merrimack, 35, Clarke, Claire, NJ, Education, Guidance Counselor
R, 42%, 2, Merrimack, 35, Dunne, Christopher, NH, Real Estate
R, 41%, 1, Merrimack, 35, Foley, Albert, CT, Automotive
R, 45%, 4, Merrimack, 35, Leber, William, MD, Govt-St of NH, Ch of Aeronautics & Military
R, 48%, 3, Merrimack, 35, Lockwood, Priscilla, NH, na
R, 49%, 4, Merrimack, 35, Maxfield, Roy, ME, Telecomm Mgr.
D, 44%, 4, Merrimack, 36, Davis, Frank, NH, Teacher, High School
R, 47%, 1, Merrimack, 36, Field, William, NJ, Teacher/Hotel Owner/Salesman
D, 43%, 2, Merrimack, 36, Rush, Deanna, NH, Teacher
R, 52%, 6, Merrimack, 37, Fraser, Leo, MA, Claim Auditor
R, 53%, 7, Merrimack, 37, Hess, David, PA, Lawyer
R, 47%, 2, Merrimack, 37, L'Heureux, Stephen, NH, Firefighter
R, 44%, 6, Merrimack, 37, Langer, Ray, NH, Statistician
R, 45%, 2, Merrimack, 37, Marple, Richard, MA, Self-employed (semi-retired)
R, 40%, 1, Merrimack, 37, Nutter, Edward, NH, Engineer, Electronic, Info Tech, Mgmt
R, 43%, 1, Merrimack, 37, Oliver, James, CT, Chief of Police, Hooksett
na, 47%, na, Merrimack, 37, Soltani, Tony, ,
R, 46%, 1, Merrimack, 38, Blanchard, Elizabeth, ME, Educator
R, 43%, 1, Merrimack, 38, Daniels, Eric, MA, Funeral Director
D, 50%, 4, Merrimack, 38, Gile, Mary, CAN, Professor/Department Head
D, 47%, 3, Merrimack, 38, Potter, Frances, IL, Clergy-Minister
D, 47%, 3, Merrimack, 39, Bouchard, Candace, PR, Accounts Receivable Mgr
D, 45%, 1, Merrimack, 39, DeJoie, John, MA, Firefighter
R, 46%, 3, Merrimack, 39, MacKay, James, MA, Psychotherapist-College Professor
D, 56%, 4, Merrimack, 39, Reardon, Tara, NH, Attorney
D, 45%, 4, Merrimack, 39, Seldin, Gloria, NY, Job Placement Specialist
D, 42%, 1, Merrimack, 40, Brueggemann, Donald, MO, Manager
R, 58%, 11, Merrimack, 40, Hager, Elizabeth, DC, Executive Dir, United Way Merr County
D, 39%, 1, Merrimack, 40, Osborne, Jessie, NY, Homemaker
D, 56%, 12, Merrimack, 40, Wallner, Mary Jane, MO, Child Care Agency Director
R, 58%, 4, Merrimack, 41, Anderson, Eric, MA, Military Ofcr
D, 54%, 3, Merrimack, 41, DeStefano, Stephen, NH, President, Real Estate Co
R, 54%, 1, Merrimack, 41, Kenison, Leon, NH, Engineer, Civil
R, 47%, 1, Rockingham, 73, Bicknell, Elbert, NY, Law Enforcement, Trucking, Restaurant
R, 48%, 1, Rockingham, 73, Cady, Harriet, VT, Real Estate Broker and Appraiser
R, 48%, 15, Rockingham, 73, Johnson, Robert, MA, Govt-St of NH Parole Bd, Dir
R, 43%, 5, Rockingham, 73, Kobel, Rudolph, GER, Engineer, Plant Maintenance
R+D, 53%, 6, Rockingham, 73, Stone, Joseph, NH, Insurance Broker
R+D, 68%, 5, Rockingham, 74, Bishop, Franklin, NH, Construction Laborer
R+D, 67%, 1, Rockingham, 74, Smith, Donald, NH, Military
R+D, 66%, 1, Rockingham, 74, Weldy, Norman, NY, Police Officer
R, 58%, 2, Rockingham, 75, Carson, Sharon, ME, na
R, 52%, 2, Rockingham, 75, Dumain, Dudley, MA, Private Investigator
R, 50%, 1, Rockingham, 75, Headd, James, NY, Insurance Agency Owner
R, 57%, 6, Rockingham, 75, Hutchinson, Karen, NH, Real Estate Broker
R, 53%, 2, Rockingham, 75, Introne, Robert, MA, Meteorologist - Technical Mgmt
R, 57%, 10, Rockingham, 75, McKinney, Betsy, ME, Accountain
R, 53%, 7, Rockingham, 75, Packard, Sherman, NH, Self-employed
R, 51%, 1, Rockingham, 75, Smith, Paul, NH, Student
R, 50%, 6, Rockingham, 75, Stritch, C Donald, ME, School Administrator
R, 53%, 6, Rockingham, 76, Belanger, Ronald, MA, Police Detective
R, 47%, 4, Rockingham, 76, Cooney, Richard, RI, Engineering Manager
R, 51%, 4, Rockingham, 76, Dalrymple, Janeen, MA, Nurse, RN
R, 52%, 3, Rockingham, 76, DiFruscia, Anthony, MA, Attorney
R, 45%, 1, Rockingham, 76, Doyle, Christopher, na, na
R, 54%, 4, Rockingham, 76, Griffin, Mary, MA, Secretary, Legal / Dist Court Clerk
R, 50%, 2, Rockingham, 76, Holland, James, MA, Firefighter
R, 47%, 1, Rockingham, 76, Ingram, Russell, MA, Banker
R, 45%, 1, Rockingham, 76, Manning, John, MA, Horse Racing Outrider
R, 49%, 1, Rockingham, 76, McMahon, Charles, MA, na
R, 46%, 5, Rockingham, 76, Noyes, Richard, NH, Newspaper Editor-publisher, weekly
R, 49%, 3, Rockingham, 76, Priestley, Anne, na, Personnel Assistant
R, 45%, 1, Rockingham, 76, Waterhouse, Kevin, na, na
R, 54%, 1, Rockingham, 77, Dupuis, Roland, MA, Police Officer
R, 50%, 8, Rockingham, 77, Fesh, Bob, CT, na
R, 49%, 5, Rockingham, 77, Gleason, John, MA, Industrial Facilities Engineer
R, 54%, 5, Rockingham, 77, Gould, Kenneth, NH, Retail Mgr.
R, 54%, 10, Rockingham, 77, Katsakiores, George, MA, na
R, 56%, 11, Rockingham, 77, Katsakiores, Phyllis, NH, Restauranteur
R, 53%, 4, Rockingham, 77, Langone, John, MA, Self-employed Sales
R, 55%, 4, Rockingham, 77, Letourneau, Robert, MA, Electronic Tech
R, 46%, 2, Rockingham, 77, Rausch, James, MI, Veterinarian
R, 46%, 1, Rockingham, 77, Wiley, Robert, MA, na
R, 50%, 3, Rockingham, 77, Zolla, William, MA, Real Estate Sales
R, 62%, 15, Rockingham, 78, Flanagan, Natalie, MA, na
R, 54%, 1, Rockingham, 78, Winchell, George, MA, Police Officer
R+D, 58%, 4, Rockingham, 79, Camm, Kevin, CA, Consultant, Land Use, Surveyor, Realtor
R+D, 66%, 5, Rockingham, 79, Clark, Vivian, FL, Engineer, Electric
R, 51%, 2, Rockingham, 79, Corbin, Corey, ME, Finance Consultant
R, 52%, 1, Rockingham, 79, Duffy, James, na, na
R+D, 57%, 10, Rockingham, 79, Flanders, John, MA, Truck Driver
R+D, 55%, 3, Rockingham, 79, Hamel, Albert, MA, Military
R+D, 63%, 4, Rockingham, 79, Major, Norman, NH, Utility, AT&T, Engineering Mgr
R+D, 55%, 5, Rockingham, 79, Putnam, Ed, MA, Drafting Analyst
R+D, 55%, 5, Rockingham, 79, Varrell, Thomas, NH, Military - meteorolgist
R+D, 58%, 9, Rockingham, 79, Welch, David, MA, Utility, AT&T, Electronics Tech
R+D, 55%, 8, Rockingham, 79, Weyler, Kenneth, MA, Airline Pilot
R, 52%, 4, Rockingham, 80, Dodge, Robert, NH, Lumber Store Manager
R+D, 53%, 2, Rockingham, 80, Flayhan/Nowe, Mary Lou, NH, Sales
R, 49%, 2, Rockingham, 80, Itse, Daniel, CA, Engineer
D, 50%, 1, Rockingham, 80, Vallone, Matthew, NH, Student
R, 56%, 1, Rockingham, 81, Allen, Mary, MA, Newspaper Reporter
D, 43%, 1, Rockingham, 81, Casey, Kimberley, MO, Homemaker
D, 51%, 5, Rockingham, 82, Coes, Betsy, NY, na
D, 42%, 1, Rockingham, 82, Davidson, Robert, MA, Govt-St of MA employee
R, 54%, 2, Rockingham, 82, Gilbert, Karl, NH, Police Chief
R, 46%, 2, Rockingham, 83, Gilbert, Jeffrey, MA, Investor
R, 45%, 2, Rockingham, 83, Johnson, Rogers, NY, Insurance Consultant
R, 49%, 2, Rockingham, 83, Quandt, Matthew, NH, Student
R, 45%, 2, Rockingham, 83, Robertson, Carl, MA, Teacher
R, 44%, 1, Rockingham, 83, Roessner, Kurt, NJ, Utility-Telephone Company Manager/Consultan
R, 45%, 3, Rockingham, 83, Ruffner, Walter, CA, Teacher/Longshoreman
R, 56%, 1, Rockingham, 83, Scamman, Stella, na, Teacher; Small Business Owner
R, 44%, 12, Rockingham, 83, Tufts, J Arthur, MA, Nurseryman
R, 52%, 1, Rockingham, 84, McCann, Richard, NH, na
R, 52%, 7, Rockingham, 84, Moore, Benjamin, MA, Self-employed
R, 45%, 1, Rockingham, 84, Morris, Richard, MA, na
R, 51%, 4, Rockingham, 84, Weare, E Albert, NH, Military (Capt) & Capt, Portsmouth FD
R, 57%, 3, Rockingham, 85, Bridle, Russell, NH, na
R, 54%, 4, Rockingham, 85, Francoeur, Sheila, MA, Banking
R, 55%, 1, Rockingham, 85, Gillick, Thomas, MA, Engineer, Chemical
R, 58%, 6, Rockingham, 85, Kelley, Jane, MA, Town Clerk & Just of Peace
R, 52%, 4, Rockingham, 85, O'Neil, Michael, NH, Vice Pres, NJ Devils Hockey Team
D, 52%, 8, Rockingham, 86, Blanchard, MaryAnn, NJ, Legal Secretary
D, 56%, 3, Rockingham, 86, McEachern, Paul, NH, Lawyer
D, 48%, 4, Rockingham, 86, Norelli, Terie, NJ, Teacher
D, 56%, 13, Rockingham, 86, Pantelakos, Laura, ME, Waitress, part-time
D, 48%, 4, Rockingham, 86, Pitts, Jacqueline, NY, na
D, 47%, 3, Rockingham, 86, Shultis, Elizabeth, NY, Librarian/Writer
D, 51%, 10, Rockingham, 86, Splaine, James, NH, Commun Consultant
R, 70%, 4, Rockingham, 87, Dearborn, Bruce, NH, Admin Mgr
R, 46%, 1, Rockingham, 88, Hughes, Daniel, NH, Real Estate Investment
R, 51%, 5, Rockingham, 88, Langley, Jane, MA, na
R, 53%, 2, Hillsborough, 42, Dionne, Kimberley, NH, na
R+D, 65%, 4, Hillsborough, 42, Elliott, Larry, NH, Counselor, Residential
R+D, 68%, 2, Hillsborough, 42, Leach, Edward, NY, Newspaper Publisher
R, 49%, 1, Hillsborough, 43, Adams, Jarvis, HI, Plumber/Caretaker
R, 43%, 1, Hillsborough, 43, O'Brien, Lori, NH, na
R, 45%, 4, Hillsborough, 44, Carlson, Donald, MA, Engineer, Elec
R, 52%, 1, Hillsborough, 44, Carter, Mark, WA, Executive
D, 38%, 1, Hillsborough, 44, Irwin, Anne-Marie, na, Teacher
R, 46%, 1, Hillsborough, 44, Ross, Lawrence, PA, Military
R, 51%, 1, Hillsborough, 45, Allen, Timothy, OR, Engineer, Computer Software
R, 48%, 3, Hillsborough, 45, Bruno, Pierre, OH, Geologist
R, 51%, 3, Hillsborough, 45, Coughlin, Pamela, NH, na
R, 46%, 2, Hillsborough, 45, Hallyburton, Margaret, IL, Lawyer/Guardian ad litem
R, 53%, 6, Hillsborough, 46, Arnold, Thomas, NJ, Quality Assurance Mgr
R, 56%, 2, Hillsborough, 46, Drisko, Richard, MA, Forest Product Sales -
R, 56%, 2, Hillsborough, 46, Gargasz, Carolyn, WA, na
R, 57%, 1, Hillsborough, 46, Haytayan, Harry, MA, Attorney
R, 60%, 3, Hillsborough, 47, Bergin, Peter, MA, Food Broker
R, 60%, 5, Hillsborough, 47, Dokmo, Cynthia, PA, Attorney
R, 49%, 1, Hillsborough, 47, Hansen, Ryan, NH, Product Manager
R, 55%, 4, Hillsborough, 47, Rowe, Robert, PA, Lawyer
R, 46%, 1, Hillsborough, 47, Slocum, Lee, PA, Computer Software Engineer
R, 54%, 2, Hillsborough, 47, Spiess, Paul, OH, Banking
R, 49%, 1, Hillsborough, 47, Stepanek, Stephen, MA, President - Hampshire Paper Corp
R, 43%, 1, Hillsborough, 47, Wheeler, James, NH, Student
R+D, 64%, 8, Hillsborough, 48, Emerton, Lawrence, NH, Real Estate Appraisal & Court Officer
R, 53%, 3, Hillsborough, 48, Fletcher, Richard, NH, Firefighter
R+D, 61%, 2, Hillsborough, 48, Holden, Randolph, na, Restaurant Manager
R, 51%, 2, Hillsborough, 48, Hopper, Gary, MA, Mold Maker
R, 51%, 6f, Hillsborough, 48, Hunter, Bruce, MA, Police Officer
R+D, 60%, 9, Hillsborough, 48, Kurk, Neal, na, na
R+D, 62%, 9, Hillsborough, 48, McRae, Karen, MN, Farmer
R+D, 59%, 6, Hillsborough, 48, Wheeler, Robert, NH, Insurance Sales
R, 43%, 1, Hillsborough, 49, Beaton, William, MA, Engineer, Chemical (semi-retired)
R, 46%, 7, Hillsborough, 49, Chabot, Robert, NH, Plumber & Steamfitter
R, 47%, 2, Hillsborough, 49, Gonzalez, Carlos, DOM, Self-employed
D, 41%, 1, Hillsborough, 49, Pappas, Christopher, NH, na
R, 48%, 4, Hillsborough, 49, Pappas, Marc, na, Real Estate
R, 44%, 3, Hillsborough, 49, Reeves, Sandra, MA, Consulting Exec.
D, 35%, 1, Hillsborough, 50, Brassard, Paul, na, Firefighter
na, 40%, na, Hillsborough, 50, Cail, Kenneth, ,
D, 39%, 2, Hillsborough, 50, Clayton, William, NH, Firefighter
D, 39%, 3, Hillsborough, 50, Craig, James, NH, Attorney
R, 35%, 3, Hillsborough, 50, Greenberg, Gary, MA, na
R, 36%, 2, Hillsborough, 50, Guinta, Frank, NJ, Secretary, Legal / Dist Court Clerk
R, 39%, 1, Hillsborough, 50, Hagan, Barbara, MA, Sales Clerk/Waitress/Plant Care Specialist
R, 37%, 1, Hillsborough, 50, Laflamme, Charles, NH, Sales Representative,Telecommunications
R, 43%, 11, Hillsborough, 50, Messier, Irene, NH, Secretary
D, 35%, 2, Hillsborough, 50, Sullivan, Peter, VA, Lawyer
R, 40%, 2, Hillsborough, 50, Tahir, Saghir, IND, Engineer, Civil / Consultant
D, 40%, 8, Hillsborough, 51, Johnson, Lionel, LA, na
R, 49%, 8, Hillsborough, 51, Pepino, Leo, NH, na
R, 41%, 2, Hillsborough, 51, Souza, Kathleen, MA, Restaurant banquet service, part time
D, 43%, 3, Hillsborough, 52, McDonough-Wallace, Alice, NH, Hostess
D, 43%, 2, Hillsborough, 52, Palangas, Eric, nh, Firefighter
D, 45%, 1, Hillsborough, 52, Sullivan, Francis, NH, Teacher, Public School
R, 43%, 1, Hillsborough, 53, Carter, Jeffrey, NH, Govt-Truck Driver
na, 43%, na, Hillsborough, 53, Desmarais, Vivian, ,
D, 41%, 3, Hillsborough, 53, Haley, Robert, NH, Facilities Maintenance Manager
D, 43%, 6, Hillsborough, 54, Baroody , Benjamin, NH, Newspaper/Real Estate
R, 48%, 1, Hillsborough, 54, Infantine, William, NY, Insurance Agent
R, 38%, 3, Hillsborough, 54, Luebkert, Bernard, MD, Manager
R, 43%, 4, Hillsborough, 55, Barry, Janet, NH, Treasurer
D, 40%, 1, Hillsborough, 55, Pilotte, Maurice, NH, Teacher, HS
D, 48%, 2, Hillsborough, 55, Shaw, Barbara, NH, Teacher/Administrator
D, 42%, 8, Hillsborough, 56, Buckley, Raymond, NH, Consultant
R, 47%, 1, Hillsborough, 56, Sullivan, Jeffrey, NH, Student
R, 52%, 4, Hillsborough, 56, Vaillancourt, Steve, VT, na
R, 66%, 7, Hillsborough, 57, Goulet, Maurice, NH, Business Appraiser
R, 65%, 2, Hillsborough, 57, Graham, John, MA, Military
R, 64%, 1, Hillsborough, 57, Hawkins, Ken, NH, Computer Sales Manager
R, 62%, 1, Hillsborough, 57, Kerns, J Edward, na, Law Student
R, 67%, 3, Hillsborough, 57, Moran, Edward, NH, Investments
R, 63%, 1, Hillsborough, 57, Scanlon, Michael, GER, Lumber Trader
na, 63%, na, Hillsborough, 58, Balcom, John, ,
R+D, 65%, 4, Hillsborough, 58, Batula, Peter, PA, Regional Manager
R+D, 60%, 5, Hillsborough, 58, Brundige, Robert, MA, Military
R+D, 62%, 2, Hillsborough, 58, Christensen, D L Chris, MA, na
R+D, 56%, 11, Hillsborough, 58, Fields, Dennis, VT, Veteran
R, 45%, 2, Hillsborough, 58, Gibson, John, na, Consultant
R, 51%, 2, Hillsborough, 58, Hall, Charles, NH, Firefighter / Part-time NH Fire Acad
R, 46%, 1, Hillsborough, 58, Hinkle, Peyton, NY, Real Estate Appraiser, Commercial
R+D, 65%, 7, Hillsborough, 58, L'Heureux, Robert, NH, Mechanic
R+D, 59%, 6, Hillsborough, 58, Milligan, Robert, ME, Air Traffic Controller
R, 47%, 1, Hillsborough, 58, Mooney, Maureen, MA, na
R, 55%, 2, Hillsborough, 59, Balboni, Michael , CT, Computer Software Engineer
R, 56%, 1, Hillsborough, 59, Crane, Elenore Casey, RI, PRI Marketing/Consulting
R, 52%, 7, Hillsborough, 59, Mercer, Robert, NH, Director of Governmental Affairs
R, 47%, 8, Hillsborough, 60, Ford, Nancy, MA, Homemaker
R, 45%, 1, Hillsborough, 60, Harrington, Paul, MA, Small Business Owner
D, 44%, 2, Hillsborough, 60, Movsesian, Lori, KS, Homemaker
na, 47%, na, Hillsborough, 61, McHugh, Claire, ,
R, 49%, 2, Hillsborough, 61, LaFlamme, Paul, NH, Real Estate Agent
R, 44%, 1, Hillsborough, 61, McElroy, Henry, AK, Tech Sales & Service/Teacher/Professor
D, 41%, 7, Hillsborough, 62, Clemons, Jane, NY, na
D, 43%, 11, Hillsborough, 62, Cote, David, NH, na
D, 37%, 3, Hillsborough, 62, Gorman, Mary, MA, na
D, 37%, 1, Hillsborough, 62, Kudalis, Debra, NH, Computer Program Coordinator
D, 37%, 14, Hillsborough, 62, Lefebvre, Roland, MA, Self-employed
D, 41%, 2, Hillsborough, 62, Sweeney, Cynthia, CT, na
R, 46%, 2, Hillsborough, 63, Allan, Nelson, ME, Consultant
D, 45%, 1, Hillsborough, 63, Kopka, Angeline, NH, Real Estate Appraiser
R, 46%, 2, Hillsborough, 63, Mosher, William, NY, Engineer, Locomotives
R, 47%, 2, Hillsborough, 64, Artz, Lawrence, MD, Electronics, Sr Technician/Radar Oper
R, 54%, 2, Hillsborough, 64, Furman, Christine, MN, Finance Mgr
R, 48%, 1, Hillsborough, 64, Price, Pamela, NY, Volunteeer
R, 42%, 1, Hillsborough, 65, Cernota, Albert, NH, Engineer, Raytheon Systems
D, 43%, 7, Hillsborough, 65, Cote, Peter, NH, na
D, 44%, 7, Hillsborough, 65, Jean, Claudette, NH, Teacher
D, 42%, 4, Hillsborough, 65, Konys, Christine, OH, na
D, 51%, 3, Hillsborough, 65, Lasky, Bette, MA, Homemaker
D, 44%, 2, Hillsborough, 65, Schulze, Joan, NY, Govt-Nashua City Com Health, Mgr
R, 64%, 2, Hillsborough, 66, Bergeron, Jean-Guy, MA, Auto Sales and Parts
R, 44%, 2, Hillsborough, 66, Bouchard, David, NH, Owner, Small Business, Hudson Pool Care
R, 39%, 1, Hillsborough, 66, Buhlman, David, MA, Engineer, Civil/Writer
R, 47%, 4, Hillsborough, 66, Christiansen, Lars, MA, Assoc Professor, NHTC Nashua, Collision Repair
R, 47%, 1, Hillsborough, 66, Goyette, Peter, MA, Sport Hunting and Fishing Outfitting
R, 45%, 5, Hillsborough, 66, Jasper, Shawn, NH, Landlord
R, 40%, 1, Hillsborough, 66, Lawrence, James, NY, Consultant, Business
R, 46%, 5, Hillsborough, 66, Lessard, Rudy, MA, Tours R Us
D, 42%, 1, Hillsborough, 66, Malloy, Chris, MA, na
R, 38%, 1, Hillsborough, 66, Ober, Russell, MA, Military
R, 47%, 6, Hillsborough, 66, Tate, Joan, NH, na

Sources:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/house/members/hroster.asp
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/downloads/
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/downloads/representatives2003(Tab%20delimited).txt
http://www.state.nh.us/sos/general2002/
http://www.state.nh.us/sos/

Senate

Note that the "Terms" are Senate and House.

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist.#, District, Last Name, First Name, Occupation, State Born
Democrat, 50%,1+2, 13, Nashua, Foster, Joseph, Attorney, n/a
Democrat, 53%, 3+3, 05, Lebanon, Below, Clifton, Business Mgr, TN
Democrat, 53%,3+2, 20, Manchester, D’Allesandro, Lou, Educator, n/a
Democrat, 54%,1+3, 21, Durham, Estabrook, Iris, Teacher, n/a
Democrat, 56%,7, 24, New Castle, Cohen, Burton, Legislator, MA
Democrat, 60%, 5, 15, Concord, Larsen, Sylvia, various non-profit boards, WI
Rep.&Dem., 100%,3, 10, Keene, Eaton, Thomas, Funeral Home Pres., NH
Republican, 52%,1, 08, Lempster, Odell, Bob, n/a, n/a
Republican, 53%,1+2, 18, Manchester, Martel, Andre, Auditor, NH
Republican, 54%,1, 23, Kingston, Prescott, Russell, Mechanical engineer, n/a
Republican, 55%,1, 06, Rochester, Green, Richard, retired?, NH
Republican, 56%,1, 07, Antrim, Flanders, Robert, Insurance sales, NH
Republican, 56%,10, 09, Bedford, Roberge, Sheila, n/a, n/a
Republican, 58%, 2+2, 04, Alton Bay, Boyce, Robert, Consultant, Sales, NE
Republican, 58%, 5+2, 02, Meredith, Johnson, Carl, Business Owner, MA
Republican, 61%,1+3, 12, Nashua, O’Hearn, Jane, Teacher, n/a
Republican, 61%,7+2, 17, Raymond, Barnes, John, Restaurant franchise owner, n/a
Republican, 64%,1, 16, Manchester, Gatsas, Theodore, Employee Leasing Co. pres, NH
Republican, 66%, 1+4, 03, Union, Kenney, Joseph, USMC Officer, NH
Republican, 66%,1+3, 11, Peterborough, Peterson, Andrew, Realtor, NH
Republican, 66%,1+4, 14, Hudson, Clegg, Robert, Construction Mgr., n/a
Republican, 67%,1+2, 22, Salem, Morse, Charles, Greenhouse/nursery owner, n/a
Republican, 68%, 1+3, 01, Berlin, Gallus, John, Business Owner, NH
Republican, 69%,1+3, 19, Derry, Sapareto, Frank, Tax Planner, n/a

Biographical info at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/.

South Dakota

House

P=Party, T=Terms, Win#=winning votes, Opp# = Opposition votes (weakest winner paired with strongest loser of opposite party). The "Seats/field" column shows the number of seats and the number of people running for those seats. In districts with two seats, each voter voted for two. But many voters only voted for one (or none) and thus the vote totals do not equal the turnout in that district. The SD website’s percentages in the "Win%" column are thus deceiving because they are percent of all the votes -- which are up to twice the number of voters because each voter had two votes. Thus a candidate which received 25% of the vote may have had nearly everyone vote for him or her (again the percentages don’t reflect percent of turnout). It is confusing and thus I refer readers and researchers to the links at the bottom of this post.

Also note that both House and Senate have two year terms. Several Senators had prior terms in the House. Several Representatives had prior terms in the Senate!!! There are also several cases in both Senate and House where it seems relatives replaced relatives. Pictures of these incumbents are in the links below.

The table is sorted by Party and winning percentage. The "easiest" seats to win are probably those at the bottom of each Party’s grouping.

P, T, Win%*, seats/field, Win#, Opp.#, Margin, District #, Residence, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
D, 1, 23.3%, (2 of 4), 3906, 3820, 86, #25, Dell Rapids, Kroger, Mike, Masonry Restoration Business
D, 7, 24.7%, (2 of 4), 4460, 4225, 235, #08, Madison, Lange, Gerald, Retired Teacher/Farmer
D, 1, 26.7%, (2 of 4), 4995, 4645, 350, #13, Sioux Falls, Thompson, Bill, Retired (Teacher)
D, 1, 28.1%, (2 of 4), 3785, 3107, 678, #09, Hartford, Engels, Richard, Attorney
D, 2, 28.7%, (2 of 4), 4953, 3103, 1850, #04, Revillo, Peterson, Jim, Farmer
D, 3, 28.9%, (2 of 4), 5371, 5131, 240, #22, Wessington Springs, Burg, Quinten, Farming & Ranching
D, 2, 29.2%, (2 of 4), 5420, 2635, 2785, #22, Miller, Hargens, Dale, Farming/Ranching
D, 2, 29.5%, (2 of 4), 5432, 3953, 1479, #02, Aberdeen, Elliott, Burt, Teacher/Coach
D, 1, 29.6%, (2 of 4), 5355, 4044, 1311, #08, Canova, Gassman, David, Farmer
D, 2, 29.7%, (2 of 4), 4939, 3431, 1508, #01, Pierpont, Sigdestad, David, Farming
D, 2, 30.1%, (2 of 4), 4347, 3006, 1341, #17, Vermillion, Nesselhuf, Ben, Insurance Agent
D, 2, 31.5%, (2 of 4), 5010, 2773, 2237, #16, Hudson, Gillespie, Margaret, Attorney
D, 2, 31.9%, (2 of 4), 3163, 1825, 1338, #15, Sioux Falls, Glenski, Mary, Retired Counselor
D, 1, 32.3%, (2 of 4), 3199, 1732, 1467, #15, Sioux Falls, Miles, Kathy, R.N./Clinic Nurse Manager
D, 2, 32.3%, (2 of 4), 5948, 3060, 2888, #02, Bath, Hundstad, Jim, Farmer/Businessman
D, 3, 34.3%, (2 of 4), 5701, 2548, 3153, #01, Sisseton, Hanson, Gary, Farmer-Rancher
D, 6, 35.5%, (2 of 4), 5831, 2261, 3570, #20, Mitchell, Olson, Mel, Teacher
D, 7, 41.7%, (2 of 4), 3735, 886, 2849, #27, Mission, Valandra, Paul, Self-employed
D, 2, 42.6%, (2 of 4), 3818, 524, 3294, #27, Pine Ridge, Bradford, Jim, Teacher
D, 2, 44.6%, (2 of 3), 6066, , 6066, #21, Burke, Bartling, Julie, Business Owner
D, 2, 63.5%, (1 of 2), 2489, 1428, 1061, #28A, Eagle Butte, Van Norman, Thomas, Lawyer
R, 1, 24.5%, (2 of 4), 3299, 3268, 31, #09, Sioux Falls, Christensen, Daryl, Project Director
R, 1, 25.4%, (2 of 4), 2782, 2674, 108, #35, Rapid City, Haverly, Jeffrey, Business Owner
R, 2, 26.6%, (2 of 4), 4367, 3604, 763, #12, Sioux Falls, Murschel, Casey, Homemaker
R, 1, 27.7%, (2 of 4), 5266, 4469, 797, #24, Onida, Olson, Ryan, Farmer/Rancher
R, 1, 28.2%, (2 of 4), 4080, 3024, 1056, #17, Vermillion, Schafer, Donna, Retired Teacher
R, 2, 29.0%, (2 of 4), 4699, , 4699, #18, Yankton, Hunhoff, Jean, R.N./Health Care Admin.
R, 1, 29.2%, (2 of 4), 4650, 3473, 1177, #16, Canton, Dykstra, Joel, CEO of Ag. Cooperative
R, 3, 29.7%, (2 of 4), 3252, 2252, 1000, #35, Rapid City, McCoy, Alice, Child Care
R, 1, 30.0%, (2 of 4), 5685, 4353, 1332, #03, Aberdeen, Novstrup, Al, Manager of Family Fun Park
R, 1, 30.1%, (2 of 4), 5714, 3565, 2149, #24, Pierre, Rounds, Tim, Insurance Claims Adjuster
R, 3, 30.3%, (2 of 4), 4979, 3498, 1481, #12, Sioux Falls, Wick, Hal, Airline Pilot for Northwest
R, 2, 31.3%, (2 of 4), 5934, 3003, 2931, #03, Aberdeen, Frost, Larry, Retired Utility Company Manager
R, 6, 31.8%, (2 of 4), 5816, 3252, 2564, #30, Wall, Pederson, Gordon, Retired Military/Businessman
R, 3, 32.0%, (2 of 4), 5795, 3483, 2312, #06, Willow Lake, Fryslie, Art, Farmer
R, 1, 32.1%, (2 of 3), 3120, 2292, 828, #33, Rapid City, Buckingham, Mike, Businessman
R, 1, 32.2%, (2 of 3), 4389, 3157, 1232, #21, Platte, Deadrick, Thomas, Attorney
R, 2, 32.3%, (2 of 4), 5858, 2981, 2877, #06, Goodwin, Koistinen, Al, Business Owner
R, 1, 32.5%, (2 of 4), 5434, 3576, 1858, #25, Baltic, Rave, Tim, Paramedic Supervisor
R, 2, 32.7%, (2 of 4), 5651, 2753, 2898, #04, Clear Lake, Begalka, Tim, Greenhouse & Nursery Owner
R, 2, 33.0%, (2 of 4), 6183, 2899, 3284, #13, Sioux Falls, Heineman, Phyllis, Homemaker (Former Teacher)
R, 3, 33.4%, (2 of 4), 5489, 2849, 2640, #20, Mitchell, Sebert, Lou, Retired--Mfg. Business
R, 3, 34.1%, (2 of 4), 6240, 2992, 3248, #30, Hermosa, Lintz, Jim, Cattle Rancher
R, 5, 34.7%, (2 of 3), 5031, 3514, 1517, #19, Armour, Putnam, J.E. "Jim", Self-employed/Promotional Advertising
R, 3, 35.3%, (2 of 4), 5724, , 5724, #18, Yankton, Michels, Matthew, Attorney
R, 2, 35.6%, (2 of 3), 4869, 2801, 2068, #32, Rapid City, Adelstein, Stanford, Company President
R, 2, 36.4%, (2 of 3), 5093, 3578, 1515, #31, Spearfish, Teupel, John, Financial Representative
R, 2, 38.0%, (2 of 3), 5316, , 5316, #31, Spearfish, Madsen, Christopher, Attorney
R, 1, 38.4%, (2 of 3), 5918, 3092, 2826, #23, Ipswich, Davis, Justin, Agribusiness
R, 1, 39.2%, (2 of 2), 3587, , 3587, #29, Sturgis, LaRue, Maurice, Retired Educator/Firefighter
R, 3, 40.0%, (2 of 3), 5796, 2736, 3060, #26, Presho, Garnos, Cooper, Teacher/Rancher/Bus. Owner
R, 3, 41.1%, (2 of 3), 5943, , 5943, #26, Vivian, Juhnke, Kent, Family Farmer/Rancher
R, 3, 41.1%, (2 of 3), 5964, , 5964, #19, Tyndall, Van Gerpen, Bill, Pastor/Farming/Air Nat. Guard
R, 1, 41.6%, (2 of 2), 4233, , 4233, #11, Sioux Falls, Cradduck, Rebekah, Association Executive
R, 1, 41.6%, (2 of 3), 6411, , 6411, #23, Hoven, Hackl, Tom, Businessman
R, 3, 43.9%, (2 of 3), 6011, , 6011, #32, Rapid City, Hennies, Thomas, Retired Police Officer (anti-gun)
R, 1, 44.0%, (2 of 2), 5352, , 5352, #34, Rapid City, Kraus, Elizabeth, Volunteer (former Medical Technician)
R, 2, 44.4%, (2 of 3), 4317, , 4317, #33, Rapid City, Van Etten, Don, Retired Surgeon
R, 1, 44.7%, (2 of 2), 5145, , 5145, #14, Sioux Falls, Cutler, Joni, Attorney/Program Manager
R, 1, 47.3%, (2 of 2), 6031, , 6031, #10, Harrisburg, Williamson, Ron, Businessman
R, 1, 49.6%, (2 of 2), 4999, , 4999, #07, Brookings, O'Brien, Sean, Attorney
R, 4, 50.5%, (2 of 2), 5090, , 5090, #07, Brookings, Smidt, Orville, Retired (US Army)
R, 2, 52.7%, (2 of 2), 6711, , 6711, #10, Sioux Falls, McCaulley, Matt, Attorney
R, 3, 55.3%, (2 of 2), 6360, , 6360, #14, Sioux Falls, Peterson, Bill, Businessman
R, 1, 56.0%, (2 of 2), 6820, , 6820, #34, Rapid City, McLaughlin, Ed, Retired mayor/Insurance/Educator
R, 3, 56.3%, (2 of 2), 4878, , 4878, #05, Watertown, Konold, Claire, Appraiser
R, 4, 56.3%, (2 of 2), 6272, , 6272, #05, Watertown, Solum, Burdette, Retired Banker
R, 1, 58.4%, (2 of 2), 5951, , 5951, #11, Sioux Falls, Weems, Keri, Stay-at-home Mother
R, 2, 60.8%, (2 of 2), 5567, , 5567, #29, Union Center, Rhoden, Larry, Rancher
R, 3, 100.0%, (1 of 1), 3370, , 3370, #28B, Walker, Klaudt, Ted, Farmer/Rancher/Businessman

Win%* in House is reported on the web site as percent of total votes but, in actuality, the percentage may be double that (percent of voters).
*Representative Rebekah Cradduck must have been appointed in the Senate after 2000 to replace Sen. Dick Hainje
*Representative Ron Williamson in #10 must have been appointed in the interim to replace Gene Abdallah who went to the Senate.
*Representative Sean O'Brien must have been appointed in the interim to replace Carol Pitts who won that seat in 2000
*Representative Keri Weems was appointed to replace Rep. Mike Jasper who replace Sen. Mitch Richter. Vote stats are for Mike Jaspers.

Sources:
http://www.state.sd.us/sos/Elections%20home%20page.htm
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2003/senrost.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/sos/2002/02legislature.htm
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2003/hourost.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/ssd0101.htm

Senate

P=Party, T=Terms, Win#=winning votes, Opp# = Opposition votes (weakest winner paired with strongest loser of opposite party). The vote totals do not equal the turnout in that district since some voters skipped voting for a senator.

All of these districts had two people running except where it is obvious that one person got 100%.

The table is sorted by Party and winning percentage. The "easiest" seats to win are those at the top of each Party’s grouping.

P, T, Win% , Win#, Opp.#, Margin, District #, Residence, Last Name, First Name, Born, Occupation
R, 1, 100%, 6908, 0, 6908, #05, Watertown, Schoenbeck, Lee, , Attorney
R, 5, 100%, 5888, 0, 5888, #07, Brookings, Brown, Arnold, , Retired
R, 2, 100%, 8218, 0, 8218, #10, Sioux Falls, Abdallah, Gene, , Retired (anti-gun*)
R, 2, 100%, 6548, 0, 6548, #11, Sioux Falls, Jaspers, Mike, , Agriculture Consultant
R, 1, 100%, 7182, 0, 7182, #14, Sioux Falls, Knudson, Dave, , Lawyer
R, 4, 100%, 6582, 0, 6582, #16, Canton, Albers, Kenneth, , Retired Sheriff/Steakhouse Owner
R, 5, 100%, 7185, 0, 7185, #20, Mitchell, Olson, Ed, , Hospital Foundation Director
R, 3, 100%, 7375, 0, 7375, #23, Hoven, Duenwald, Jay, , Farmer
R, 2, 100%, 7880, 0, 7880, #24, Pierre, de Hueck, Patricia, , Attorney
R, 4, 100%, 6555, 0, 6555, #25, Garretson, Kooistra, Clarence, , Retired Educator
R, 3, 100%, 5214, 0, 5214, #28, Faith, Bogue, Eric, , Attorney
R, 4, 100%, 7514, 0, 7514, #29, Sturgis, Kleven, Marguerite, , Broadcast Station Owner
R, 4, 100%, 6739, 0, 6739, #31, Lead, Apa, Jerry, , Retired
R, 4, 100%, 6020, 0, 6020, #32, Rapid City, Ham, Arlene, , Businesswoman
R, 1, 81.4%, 4505, 1030, 3475, #27, Mission, LaPointe, Michael, , n/a
R, 4, 79.3%, 7681, 2009, 5672, #30, Hill City, Vitter, Drue, , Business Owner
R, 3, 72.9%, 7457, 2777, 4680, #03, Aberdeen, Sutton, Duane, , Sign Company Owner
R, 2, 72.0%, 7285, 2830, 4455, #34, Rapid City, McCracken, Royal "Mac", , Retired
R, 5, 68.2%, 4515, 2101, 2414, #33, Rapid City, Duniphan, J.P., , Business Owner
R, 4, 68.2%, 6609, 3078, 3531, #04, Elkton, Diedrich, Larry, , Farmer
R, 5, 58.5%, 3686, 2617, 1069, #35, Rapid City, Napoli, William, , Businessman
R, 6, 56.8%, 5581, 4237, 1344, #26, Wood, Koskan, John, , Farmer/Rancher
R, 1, 56.0%, 5736, 4502, 1234, #13, Sioux Falls, Kelly, Dick, , Realtor
R, 2, 55.8%, 5731, 4542, 1189, #06, Clark, Greenfield, Brock, , Businessman/Sub.Teacher/Coach
R, 1, 53.3%, 4104, 3593, 511, #09, Sioux Falls, Dempster, Tom, , Financial Advisor
R, 1, 51.1%, 4735, 4535, 200, #12, Sioux Falls, Earley, William, , Banker
D, 3, 100.0%, 7321, 0, 7321, #08, Flandreau, Sutton, Dan, , Insurance Sales
D, 6, 100.0%, 3986, 0, 3986, #15, Sioux Falls, Koetzle, Gil, , Ret. Firefighter/Pres. AFL-CIO
D, 7, 71.6%, 6378, 2527, 3851, #18, Yankton, Moore, Garry, , Sales
D, 7, 70.4%, 6734, 2833, 3901, #01, Amherst, Symens, Paul, , Agriculture Production
D, 7, 69.5%, 7141, 3139, 4002, #22, Wessington, Duxbury, Robert, , Farming
D, 6, 69.0%, 6947, 3126, 3821, #02, Columbia, Dennert, H. Paul, , Farmer
D, 3, 64.2%, 6163, 3440, 2723, #21, Platte, Nachtigal, Sam, , Shepherd
D, 7, 54.3%, 5363, 4507, 856, #19, Scotland, Kloucek, Frank, , Farmer
D, 7, 51.6%, 4286, 4022, 264, #17, Vermillion, Reedy, John, , Sales

*Senator Dick Kelly must have been appointed after Kermit Staggers won that seat in 2000.
*Senator Abdallah was elected to House in 2000 and moved in the interim via appointment
*Representative Mike Jaspers was appointed to replace Senator Mitch Richter. Vote stats are for Mitch Richter.
*Republican Michael LaPoint was appointed to replace Democrat Senator Richard Hagen. Vote stats are for Hagen.

Sources:
http://www.state.sd.us/sos/Elections%20home%20page.htm
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2003/senrost.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/sos/2002/02legislature.htm
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2003/hourost.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/ssd0101.htm

Maine

The entire Senate and House are elected every two years. The Maine term limits law which took effect with the November 1996 election prohibits legislators from serving more than 4 consecutive two-year terms in any one branch of the Legislature. [Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Title 21-A, Chapter 8, Section 553] Note that there is thus a loophole. Apparently they can take a few years off or serve in the other branch and come back for another four terms.

House

The Maine House of Representatives consists of 151 members plus two nonvoting members representing the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe. Each House member represents a district which has approximately 8,132 people. Several of the House Members have served in both houses often Senate first. Many of the multi-term incumbents have taken a few terms off and come back -- sometimes in the other branch . See the links below for biographical info.

The vote totals are for the winner and runner-up; where the win percentage does not “add up” it is because it was a three or four-way race. These totals are votes cast in the House race and do not indicate total voter turnout. Note that some districts have either extremely poor turnout or not much interest in the House race.

P=Party, T=Terms in either branch , U="Unenrolled", Win# = votes for winner, Opp# = votes for runner-up, Margin is the difference between those two.

P, T, Win%, Win#, Opp#, Margin, Dist#, District, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
U, 1, 65%, 2171, 1176, 995, #151, Fort Kent, Jackson, Troy D., Logger
U, 1, 62%, 2625, 1596, 1029, #044, Yarmouth, Woodbury, Richard G., Economist
U, 1, 44%, 1786, 1412, 374, #060, Union, Sukeforth, Gary E., Business Owner
R, 3, 100%, 3906, 0, 3906, #002, York, Andrews, Mary Black, RN/Jam and Jelly Business
R, 8, 100%, 4167, 0, 4167, #008, Kennebunk, Murphy, Thomas W. Jr., Retired Teacher/Writer
R, 1, 100%, 4053, 0, 4053, #021, Scarborough, Curley, Darlene J., Health Care Consultant/RN/Business Owner/Educator
R, 3, 100%, 3197, 0, 3197, #039, Windham, Tobin, David L., Retired
R, 3, 100%, 4445, 0, 4445, #042, Cumberland, McKenney, Terrence P., Owner Automotive Service Business
R, 3, 100%, 3197, 0, 3197, #059, Waldoboro, Trahan, A. David, Self-employed logger
R, 2, 100%, 527, 0, 527, #148, Limestone, Young, Florence T., Retired Banker
R, 1, 88%, 2378, 327, 2051, #026, South Portland, Maietta, Louis B. Jr., Construction Company Vice President
R, 3, 78%, 2181, 631, 1550, #138, Lincoln, Carr, Roderick W., Retired State Police Sgt./Business Owner
R, 4, 74%, 3378, 1199, 2179, #058, Boothbay, Honey, Ken, Retired Fisheries Administrator
R, 3, 69%, 2160, 951, 1209, #009, Sanford, Bowles, David E., Retail Business Owner
R, 3, 69%, 1904, 859, 1045, #064, Oxford, Heidrich, Theodore H., Retired
R, 3, 68%, 2337, 1076, 1261, #113, Bucksport, Rosen, Richard W., Merchant
R, 4, 68%, 1758, 828, 930, #126, Dexter, Tobin, James H. Jr., Tree Farmer/Retired Cocational Center Director
R, 3, 67%, 1685, 824, 861, #142, Hodgdon, Sherman, Roger L., n/a
R, 3, 67%, 2885, 1448, 1437, #022, Scarborough, Clough, Harold A., Retired Business Executive
R, 3, 66%, 3786, 1936, 1850, #040, Falmouth, Davis, Gerald M., Retired History Teacher
R, 3, 66%, 1631, 842, 789, #062, Rockland, McNeil, Deborah K., Floral Designer
R, 4, 65%, 1755, 939, 816, #096, Augusta, O'Brien, Julie Ann, Children's Museum Executive Director
R, 2, 64%, 1916, 1085, 831, #112, Dover-Foxcroft, Annis, James D., Retired Illustrator
R, 1, 63%, 2450, 1457, 993, #041, Gray, Austin, Susan M., Mgmt. Asst./Sole Prop. of Decorating Business
R, 1, 63%, 2530, 1505, 1025, #127, Ellsworth, Crosthwaite, Robert H., Pastor/QMRP
R, 4, 62%, 2283, 1393, 890, #124, Carmel, Treadwell, Russell P., USMC retired
R, 4, 62%, 2434, 1495, 939, #071, Poland, Snowe-Mello, Lois A., State Representative
R, 3, 61%, 2226, 1407, 819, #013, Arundel, Daigle, Robert A., Environmental Consultant
R, 4, 61%, 2277, 1450, 827, #109, Belmont, Berry, Donald P. Sr., Retired Educator
R, 2, 61%, 2370, 1517, 853, #116, Holden, Ledwin, Mary Ellen, Retire Teacher and Realtor
R, 1, 61%, 1757, 1130, 627, #006, Sanford, Courtney, Jonathan T. E., Small Business Owner
R, 1, 60%, 2353, 1571, 782, #011, Newfield, Campbell, James J. Sr., Retired
R, 1, 59%, 1888, 1335, 553, #102, Winslow, Fletcher, Kenneth C., Pulp and Paper Consultant
R, 3, 58%, 1792, 1277, 515, #068, Waterford, Millett, H. Sawin Jr., Retired Educator/Government Administrator
R, 1, 58%, 1959, 1411, 548, #125, Newport, Tardy, Joshua A., Attorney
R, 5, 58%, 2344, 1704, 640, #038, Raymond, Bruno, Joseph, Pres. & CEO of Business Group
R, 2, 58%, 1736, 1279, 457, #045, Fryeburg, Muse, Kevin M., Publisher
R, 3, 57%, 2074, 1567, 507, #072, Auburn, Shields, Thomas F., Retired Orthopedic Surgeon
R, 1, 56%, 2146, 1660, 486, #061, Thomaston, Rector, Christopher, Art Publisher
R, 1, 56%, 2244, 1754, 490, #043, Standish, Moore, Gary W., School Super./Human Resource Consultant/Small Farmer
R, 1, 56%, 1481, 1165, 316, #084, Lisbon, Berube, Robert A., Realtor/Property Mgr.
R, 1, 55%, 1456, 1200, 256, #146, Washburn, Churchill, John W., Retire State Police/Building Contractor
R, 3, 55%, 1923, 1594, 329, #103, Oakland, Nutting, Robert W., Pharmacist
R, 3, 54%, 1376, 1150, 226, #027, South Portland, Glynn, Kevin J., Information Systems Manager
R, 1, 54%, 1881, 1574, 307, #107, Winterport, Kaelin, Jeff, Self-employed Marine Contractor
R, 2, 54%, 1672, 1402, 270, #137, Greenbush, Peavey-Haskell, Anita, Business Owner and Manager
R, 2, 54%, 2102, 1789, 313, #114, Hampden, Duprey, Brian M., Business Owner
R, 1, 54%, 1765, 1519, 246, #075, Turner, Bryant Deschenes, Joan, Attorney/Business Owner
R, 1, 54%, 1944, 1675, 269, #132, Sorrento, Bierman, Leonard Earl, Firefighter/Contractor
R, 2, 54%, 2042, 1767, 275, #047, Baldwin, Cressey, Philip A. Jr., Self-employed
R, 3, 53%, 2250, 1979, 271, #007, Wells, Collins, Ronald F., Sales
R, 1, 53%, 1265, 1115, 150, #005, Berwick, Stone, Oscar C., Real Estate Broker
R, 1, 53%, 1895, 1311, 584, #122, Levant, Greeley, Christian D., Business Owner/Adjunct College Instructor
R, 1, 53%, 1747, 1551, 196, #115, Brewer, Rogers, William T. Jr., Real Estate Broker
R, 5, 53%, 1399, 1250, 149, #141, Crystal, Joy, Henry L., Retired Educator
R, 1, 53%, 1677, 1511, 166, #004, South Berwick, Brown, Richard B., Town Manager
R, 1, 52%, 1920, 1758, 162, #012, Waterboro, Jacobsen, Lawrence E., n/a (retired)
R, 5, 52%, 1698, 1562, 136, #108, Cornville, Mills, S. Peter, Attorney
R, 1, 52%, 1479, 1388, 91, #067, Dixfield, Hotham, Randy E., Technical Service Representative
R, 1, 51%, 1938, 1844, 94, #085, Durham, Vaughan, Michael A., Medical Transcription
R, 1, 51%, 2101, 2031, 70, #063, Rockport, Bowen, Stephen, Teacher
R, 3, 51%, 1796, 1751, 45, #065, Bethel, Jodrey, Arlan R., Tree Farmer (retired Pipeline Supervisor)
R, 1, 51%, 1727, 1685, 42, #094, Vassalboro, Browne, William P., Retired Teacher
R, 2, 50%, 1716, 1683, 33, #111, Greenville, Richardson, Earl E., n/a (retired?)
R, 1, 50%, 1553, 1548, 5, #081, Skowhegan, Richardson, Maitland E., n/a (retired?)
R, 1, 50%, 2154, 2152, 2, #080, Manchester, Moody, Stanley A., Financial /Business Consultant/Pastor
R, 1, 50%, 1886, 843, 1043, #046, Harrison, Sykes, Richard M., Retired High School Principal
R, 1, 49%, 1929, 1469, 460, #003, Eliot, Lewin, Sarah O., Retail Store Director/Quality Control Mgr.
R, 6, 44%, 2072, 1957, 115, #128, Orland, Churchill, Eugene L., Retired
R, 1, 44%, 1605, 1362, 243, #082, West Gardiner, McCormick, Earle L., Retired USAF Meteorologist/Educator
G, 1, 65%, 1796, 981, 815, #031, Portland, Eder, John, Self-employed
D, 4, 100%, 3306, 0, 3306, #015, Saco, O'Neil, Christopher P., Marketing
D, 4, 100%, 2765, 0, 2765, #016, Saco, Kane, Thomas J., Retired Licensed Clinical Social Worker
D, 3, 100%, 3357, 0, 3357, #017, Biddeford, Sullivan, Nancy B., Public School Teacher
D, 2, 100%, 1590, 0, 1590, #018, Biddeford, Laverriere-Boucher, Marie, Social Worker
D, 3, 100%, 3002, 0, 3002, #020, Old Orchard Beach, Lemoine, David G., Attorney
D, 3, 100%, 2936, 0, 2936, #034, Portland, Norbert, William S., Attorney
D, 1, 100%, 2369, 0, 2369, #077, Wilton, Saviello, Thomas B., Manager Environment/Health/Safety
D, 4, 100%, 2520, 0, 2520, #086, Lewiston, Mailhot, Richard H., Retired Business Owner/Operator
D, 1, 100%, 2116, 0, 2116, #097, Madison, Ketterer, Susanne P., Realtor/Owner Internet Company
D, 4, 100%, 2549, 0, 2549, #121, Old Town, Dunlap, Matthew, Waiter
D, 2, 100%, 1351, 0, 1351, #123, Orono, Thomas, Jonathan, Student
D, 4, 100%, 2317, 0, 2317, #134, Pembroke, Goodwin, Albion D., Retired
D, 2, 81%, 2538, 592, 1946, #150, Frenchville, Paradis, Rosaire "Ross" Jr., Retired Educator
D, 3, 80%, 2451, 614, 1837, #030, Portland, Dudley, Benjamin F., n/a
D, 2, 76%, 2302, 732, 1570, #070, Rumford, Patrick, John L., Maintenance Worker
D, 5, 75%, 1365, 462, 903, #033, Portland, Adams, Herbert, Journalist
D, 2, 74%, 2549, 888, 1661, #037, Portland, Cummings, Glenn A., Executive Director
D, 10, 72%, 2083, 795, 1288, #035, Portland, Brannigan, Joseph C., Mental Health Executive
D, 2, 72%, 1529, 596, 933, #100, Waterville, Marraché, Lisa T., Physician
D, 2, 70%, 1946, 838, 1108, #050, Brunswick, Gerzofsky, Stan, Furniture Manufacturer
D, 4, 67%, 1868, 900, 968, #140, Millinocket, Clark, Joseph E., Millworker
D, 1, 66%, 1606, 828, 778, #010, Sanford, Landry, Roger A., Retired Disabled Veteran
D, 3, 65%, 2226, 1178, 1048, #019, Biddeford, Twomey, Joanne T., Self-employed
D, 3, 65%, 896, 476, 420, #089, Lewiston, O'Brien, Lillian LaFontaine, Retired Social Worker
D, 2, 65%, 1438, 776, 662, #099, Waterville, Canavan, Marilyn E., Retired Dir. State Ethics Commission
D, 2, 65%, 2224, 1208, 1016, #036, Portland, Marley, Boyd P., Teacher
D, 2, 64%, 1622, 893, 729, #120, Bangor, Norton, Jacqueline R., School Teacher
D, 2, 64%, 1812, 1020, 792, #104, Pittsfield, McGowan, Bernard E., Retired
D, 4, 64%, 1743, 988, 755, #091, Gardiner, Colwell, Patrick, Ceramic Tile Contractor
D, 4, 63%, 1883, 1083, 800, #118, Bangor, Perry, Joseph C., Small Business Owner
D, 4, 63%, 2328, 1341, 987, #079, Wayne, McKee, Linda Rogers, Teacher
D, 3, 63%, 1884, 1094, 790, #049, Brunswick, Richardson, John, Attorney
D, 1, 63%, 1778, 1038, 740, #090, Lewiston, Makas, Elaine, Social Psychologist and Professor
D, 4, 62%, 2095, 1275, 820, #069, Buckfield, Gagne-Friel, Rosita, Retired High School Teacher
D, 1, 62%, 1847, 1142, 705, #139, Medway, Duprey, Guy J. Jr., Quality Assurance Technician/Papermaker
D, 1, 62%, 2530, 1575, 955, #129, North Haven, Pingree, Hannah, Self-employed Fundraiser
D, 4, 61%, 2216, 1404, 812, #092, Hallowell, Cowger, Scott W., Innkeeper and Consulting Engineer
D, 3, 61%, 1938, 1244, 694, #117, Bangor, Faircloth, Sean F., Attorney
D, 2, 61%, 1677, 1090, 587, #144, Mars Hill, Lundeen, Jacqueline A., Partner Family Farming Business
D, 1, 60%, 2058, 1383, 675, #083, Monmouth, Smith, Nancy E., Farmer
D, 3, 60%, 2070, 1394, 676, #029, Westbrook, Duplessie, Robert W., Tree Farmer/Retired Prof. Fire Fighter/EMT
D, 3, 60%, 1846, 1248, 598, #131, Cherryfield, Dugay, Edward R., Eldercare Provider
D, 1, 59%, 1631, 1126, 505, #093, Leeds, Jennings, Rodney C., Mill Worker
D, 1, 59%, 1926, 1054, 872, #032, Portland, Suslovic, Edward J., Community Development Consultant
D, 2, 58%, 1907, 1360, 547, #052, Topsham, Lessard, Paul J., Retired
D, 1, 58%, 2574, 1841, 733, #051, Phippsburg, Percy, Leila J., Professional Entertainer/Band Leader/Vocalist
D, 1, 58%, 848, 615, 233, #087, Lewiston, Walcott, William R., Human Services
D, 11, 58%, 1657, 1208, 449, #028, Westbrook, Usher, Ronald E., Retired Papermaker
D, 3, 58%, 1810, 1320, 490, #066, Embden, McGlocklin, Monica, Sales and Marketing
D, 2, 58%, 1089, 796, 293, #149, Van Buren, Smith, William J., Attorney
D, 1, 58%, 1702, 1246, 456, #088, Lewiston, Craven, Margaret M., Respite Coordinator
D, 1, 57%, 1790, 1336, 454, #001, Kittery, Wheeler, Walter A. Sr., Retired
D, 1, 57%, 1443, 1085, 358, #095, Augusta, Lerman, Arthur L., Social Services Agency Exec. Director
D, 2, 56%, 2450, 1897, 553, #130, Bar Harbor, Koffman, Theodore, College Administrator
D, 1, 55%, 1583, 1273, 310, #054, Bath, Watson, Thomas R., Attorney
D, 1, 55%, 2047, 1649, 398, #023, Gorham, Barstow, Christopher R., Auditor
D, 1, 55%, 1269, 969, 300, #145, Presque Isle, Fischer, Jeremy, Insurance Agent
D, 2, 55%, 2498, 2033, 465, #025, Cape Elizabeth, McLaughlin, Janet L., Financial Consultant
D, 2, 55%, 2005, 1666, 339, #105, Belfast, Ash, Walter E. Jr., Mechanic
D, 2, 54%, 2096, 1310, 786, #057, Wiscasset, Rines, Peter L., Fire Service Instructor
D, 2, 54%, 2107, 1794, 313, #024, South Portland, Bliss, Lawrence, Educational Administrator
D, 1, 54%, 1846, 1581, 265, #014, Buxton, Breault, Bonita J., Insurance and Financial Affairs
D, 2, 54%, 1858, 1137, 721, #076, Jay, Pineau, Raymond G., Millwright
D, 4, 54%, 1551, 1345, 206, #136, Kossuth Township, Bunker, George H. Jr., Owner of Investigation Agency
D, 3, 53%, 1269, 1108, 161, #147, Caribou, Bennett, Philip R. Jr., Self-employed court reporter
D, 2, 53%, 1201, 1069, 132, #119, Bangor, Blanchette, Patricia A., Retail Clerk
D, 4, 53%, 2394, 2137, 257, #048, Freeport, Bull, Thomas D., EMT/Firefighter
D, 1, 53%, 2302, 2062, 240, #056, Damariscotta, Earle, William M., Retired Educator
D, 1, 53%, 1321, 1189, 132, #135, Calais, Perry, Anne C., Nurse Practitioner
D, 1, 53%, 1504, 1356, 148, #078, Farmington, Mills, Janet T., Attorney
D, 1, 52%, 1488, 1368, 120, #074, Auburn, Sampson, Sonya G., Realtor
D, 1, 52%, 1809, 1429, 380, #110, Unity, Piotti, John F., Program Manager
D, 2, 52%, 896, 629, 267, #073, Auburn, Simpson, Deborah L., n/a
D, 2, 51%, 1884, 1777, 107, #053, Bowdoinham, Hutton, Deborah J., n/a
D, 1, 51%, 1306, 1250, 56, #143, Littleton, Wotton, Raymond, Retired Dairy and Potato Farmer
D, 1, 51%, 1686, 1617, 69, #106, China, Thompson, Judd D., Retired Engineer
D, 1, 51%, 1353, 1321, 32, #101, Fairfield, Finch, Edward D., Retired Teacher
D, 1, 45%, 1703, 1572, 131, #055, Woolwich, Grose, Carol A., Advocate
D, 1, 37%, 835, 724, 111, #133, Machias, Pellon, Edward, Contractor/Rentals
D, 2, 37%, 1008, 910, 98, #098, Skowhegan, Hatch, Paul R., Retired Papermaker
n/a, 4, , , , , , Penobscot Nation, Loring , Donna M., Coordinator of Tribal/State&Intnl Relations (Penobscot Nations)
n/a, 3, , , , , , Passamaquoddy Tribe, Moore, Frederick J. III, Law Enforcement/Fisheries/Manufacturing

Sources of above info:
http://janus.state.me.us/house/hbiolist.htm
http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/elec/2002g/gen02sr.htm
http://janus.state.me.us/house/dist_twn.htm

Senate

By the year 2010 all Senators elected in 2002 will be term limited (4 terms or 8 years). Many of the Senate Members have served in the House first -- as indicated by Terms which are “Senate+House”. One Senator, David Carpenter, took a few terms off and thus has two more to go before term limited. See the link below for biographical info.

The vote totals are for the winner and runner-up; where the win percentage does not “add up” it is because it was a three-way race (usually Greens, though one was LP). These totals are votes cast in the Senate race and do not indicate total voter turnout. Note that some districts have either extremely poor turnout or not much interest in the House race.

P=Party, T=Terms in Senate+prior House. Win# = votes for winner, Opp# = votes for runner-up, Margin is the difference between those two

P, T, Win%, Win#, Opp#, Margin, Dist#, District, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
R, 3, 100%, 10882, 0, 10882, #08, Piscataquis, Davis, Paul, Self-Employed
R, 4, 100%, 12481, 0, 12481, #10, Penobscot, Mitchell, Betty Lou, Retired Operations Director - Verizon
R, 4+2, 100%, 11632, 0, 11632, #25, Oxford, Bennett, Richard, Principal: Lens Investment Management
R, 2, 64%, 8612, 4784, 3828, #17, Franklin, Woodcock, Chandler, Educator
R, 2+4, 64%, 9764, 5495, 4269, #35, York, Lemont, Kenneth, Self-Employed
R, 2+4, 64%, 5165, 2925, 2240, #02, Aroostook, Kneeland, Richard, Retired Farmer
R, 6, 63%, 8169, 4842, 3327, #33, York, Carpenter, David, Retired Realtor
R, 2+3, 58%, 9134, 6514, 2620, #12, Knox, Savage, Christine, Retired Town Manager
R, 4+3, 58%, 9791, 6066, 3725, #31, Cumberland, Pendleton, Peggy, Nurse Education Consultant
R, 2+1, 58%, 6517, 4794, 1723, #04, Washington, Shorey, Kevin, Self-Employed
R, 2, 57%, 10617, 8155, 2462, #26, Cumberland, Turner, Karl, Registered Investment Advisor
R, 2, 55%, 6471, 5273, 1198, #09, Penobscot, Sawyer, W. Tom, Retired Entrepreneur/Sawyer Environmental
R, 1+4, 55%, 8616, 7043, 1573, #19, Sagadahoc, Mayo, Arthur III, Retired Funeral Director
R, 1+4, 55%, 8254, 6858, 1396, #34, York, Nass, Richard, n/a
R, 1, 52%, 7143, 6499, 644, #20, Kennebec, Blais, Kenneth, President: Digital Architecture Group
R, 2, 52%, 7893, 7306, 587, #06, Penobscot, Youngblood, Edward, Banker
R, 1, 51%, 7932, 7533, 399, #29, Cumberland, Gilman, Carolyn, Retired Library Tech/Media Specialist
R, 1+2, 48%, 7228, 5657, 1571, #11, Waldo, Weston, Carol, n/a
D, 4+3, 100%, 9880, 0, 9880, #07, Penobscot, Cathcart, Mary, Legislator
D, 1, 74%, 8750, 3081, 5669, #28, Cumberland, Strimling, Ethan, Executive Director/Portland West
D, 2+17, 73%, 9033, 3339, 5694, #01, Aroostook, Martin, John, Educator
D, 2, 70%, 7020, 3047, 3973, #21, Androscoggin, Rotundo, Peggy, Educator
D, 2+2, 65%, 8132, 4323, 3809, #14, Kennebec, Gagnon, Kenneth, College Administrator
D, 4+3, 56%, 8846, 6850, 1996, #18, Kennebec, Treat, Sharon, Coordinator College Environmental Studies
D, 3, 56%, 7418, 5838, 1580, #22, Androscoggin, Douglass, Neria, Attorney/Mother
D, 2, 55%, 9217, 7422, 1795, #30, Cumberland, Bromley, Lynn, Therapist/Consultant
D, 4+5, 54%, 6908, 5864, 1044, #15, Kennebec, Daggett, Beverly, Property Owner/Manager
D, 4+2, 53%, 9667, 7227, 2440, #27, Cumberland, Brennan, Michael, Policy Associate: Muskie School of Public Service
D, 2, 53%, 8400, 7410, 990, #23, Cumberland, Edmonds, Beth, Children's Librarian
D, 4+1, 52%, 8187, 5651, 2536, #32, York, LaFountain, Lloyd, Attorney
D, 1+4, 52%, 6255, 5743, 512, #13, Somerset, Hatch, Pamela, Bookkeeper
D, 1+3, 52%, 6071, 5656, 415, #03, Penobscot, Stanley, Stephen, Mill Worker
D, 1+3, 50%, 6834, 6822, 12, #24, Oxford, Bryant, Bruce, Paper Company Boiler Operator; Ginseng Grower
D, 1+1, 50%, 8898, 8896, 2, #16, Lincoln, Hall, Christopher, Consultant
D, 1, 50%, 8493, 7086, 1407, #05, Hancock, Damon, Dennis, Legislator

Sources of above info:
http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/elec/2002g/gen02ss.htm
http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/senators/index.htm
http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/map/map.html

Montana

Term limits of not "seeking" re-election more than 8 out of 16 years in the same office became effective in 2002. BUT, they can be re-elected by write in for more than 8 years (Sen. Barkus did this 2002). Yet there were a lot of first-termers. Several Senators previously served in the House.

In the tables below P=Party, T=Terms, Win%=Winning Percentage, Win#=votes for winner, Opp#=votes for runner-up. Margin is difference between these two. The percentage may not add up because several races had a third or fourth party. No occupation or other info was available.

House

P, T, Win%, Win#, Opp#, Margin, Dist#, Residence, Last Name, First Name
R, 2, 100%, 2514, 0, 2514, #03, Terry, Devlin, Ronald
R, 2, 100%, 2844, 0, 2844, #08, Roundup, Olson, Alan
R, 1, 100%, 3290, 0, 3290, #40, White Sulphur Springs, Hurwitz, Dan
R, 3, 100%, 4155, 0, 4155, #61, Victor, Shockley, Jim
R, 3, 100%, 3138, 0, 3138, #79, Kalispell, Jackson, Verdell
R, 3, 100%, 2601, 0, 2601, #88, Sweetgrass, Clark, Edith
R, 3, 100%, 2150, 0, 2150, #97, Antelope, Hedges, Donald
R, 2, 100%, 2530, 0, 2530, #99, Brockway, Kasten, Dave
R, 2, 100%, 2165, 0, 2165, #100, Sidney, Steinbeisser, Donald
R, 1, 100%, 3189, 13, 3176, #76, Lakeside, Olson, Bernie
R, 2, 80%, 3343, 827, 2516, #32, Bozeman, Balyeat, Joe
R, 2, 76%, 2381, 758, 1623, #34, Dillon, Barrett, Debby
R, 1, 72%, 2249, 871, 1378, #01, Broadus, Lambert, Carol
R, 1, 70%, 2177, 927, 1250, #84, Kalispell, Everett, George
R, 3, 69%, 3438, 1536, 1902, #09, Billings, Noennig, Mark
R, 2, 69%, 2770, 1270, 1500, #33, Harrison, Rice, Diane
R, 2, 66%, 2091, 1096, 995, #95, Glasgow, Pattison, Jeff
R, 1, 66%, 2508, 1320, 1188, #25, Emigrant, Malcolm, Bruce
R, 2, 65%, 1580, 854, 726, #12, Billings, Schrumpf, Clarice
R, 4, 64%, 2222, 1241, 981, #71, Alberton, Bookout-Reinicke, Sylvia
R, 2, 64%, 1683, 953, 730, #56, Garrison, Rome, Allen
R, 1, 63%, 2324, 1342, 982, #59, Hamilton, Stoker, Ron
R, 2, 62%, 1837, 1099, 738, #83, Hungry HorseMT, Brown, Dee
R, 1, 62%, 2075, 1268, 807, #81, Fortine, Maedje, Rick
R, 1, 62%, 2689, 1648, 1041, #31, Bozeman, Sinrud, John
R, 3, 62%, 2498, 1548, 950, #75, Bigfork, Fisher, Stanley
R, 1, 62%, 2706, 1689, 1017, #10, Billings, Roberts, Don
R, 3, 61%, 2309, 1506, 803, #93, Hobson, Thomas, Bill
R, 1, 60%, 1803, 1187, 616, #21, Billings, Morgan, Penny
R, 1, 60%, 2487, 1471, 1016, #60, Hamilton, Lake, Bob
R, 2, 60%, 2401, 1610, 791, #55, Helena, Lewis, Dave
R, 2, 60%, 2352, 1596, 756, #74, Polson, Brueggeman, John
R, 4, 59%, 2332, 1638, 694, #58, Seeley Lake, Mood, Doug
R, 3, 59%, 2210, 1554, 656, #49, Great Falls, McKenney, Joe
R, 1, 58%, 2125, 1537, 588, #19, Billings, Lange, Michael
R, 3, 58%, 1555, 947, 608, #14, Billings, Brown, Roy
R, 2, 58%, 1863, 1359, 504, #96, Peerless, Waitschies, Karl
R, 4, 58%, 2250, 1505, 745, #77, Kalispell, Bitney, Rod
R, 3, 58%, 2113, 1547, 566, #89, Carter, Witt, John
R, 2, 58%, 1951, 1439, 512, #87, Power, Lehman, Larry
R, 1, 56%, 1762, 1365, 397, #94, Buffalo, Peterson, Jim
R, 4, 55%, 2227, 1787, 440, #15, Billings, Fuchs, Daniel
R, 2, 54%, 2014, 1424, 590, #50, Wolf Creek, Ripley, Rick
R, 1, 54%, 1731, 1468, 263, #26, Livingston, Wagman, Pat
R, 1, 54%, 3135, 2670, 465, #27, Bozeman, Sales, Scott
R, 2, 54%, 1893, 1628, 265, #22, Laurel, Laszloffy, Jeff
R, 1, 54%, 2362, 2051, 311, #39, Cardwell, Mendenhall, Scott
R, 1, 52%, 1990, 1844, 146, #24, Absarokee, Ross, Jack
R, 3, 52%, 2226, 2077, 149, #23, Fromberg, Andersen, Joan
R, 3, 51%, 2387, 2278, 109, #28, Bozeman, Younkin, Cindy
R, 3, 51%, 2250, 2157, 93, #63, Missoula, Haines, Dick
R, 1, 50%, 1842, 1693, 149, #62, Florence, Hawk, Ray
R, 4, 49%, 1663, 1494, 169, #80, Whitefish, Lawson, Bob
D, 2, 100%, 2572, 0, 2572, #02, Glendive, Lenhart, Ralph
D, 3, 100%, 2320, 0, 2320, #04, Miles City, Matthews, Gary
D, 2, 100%, 2439, 0, 2439, #36, Butte, Keane, Jim
D, 2, 100%, 2158, 0, 2158, #37, Butte, Cyr, Larry
D, 3, 100%, 1762, 0, 1762, #44, Great Falls, Golie, George
D, 2, 100%, 2912, 0, 2912, #57, Anaconda, Laslovich, Jesse
D, 3, 100%, 2351, 0, 2351, #65, Missoula, Buzzas, Rosalie
D, 3, 100%, 2376, 0, 2376, #67, Missoula, Facey, Tom
D, 3, 100%, 2866, 0, 2866, #72, Trout Creek, Clark, Paul
D, 3, 100%, 1591, 0, 1591, #85, Browning, Juneau, Carol
D, 3, 100%, 1739, 0, 1739, #98, Poplar, Smith, Frank
D, 3, 98%, 2133, 41, 2092, #48, Great Falls, Galvin-Halcro, Kathleen
D, 3, 85%, 2072, 369, 1703, #66, Missoula, Gutsche, Gail
D, 2, 79%, 1367, 370, 997, #30, Bozeman, Harris, Christopher
D, 2, 79%, 1927, 522, 1405, #38, Butte, Newman, Brad
D, 2, 74%, 2871, 1005, 1866, #54, Helena, Jacobson, Hal
D, 2, 69%, 1507, 678, 829, #91, Havre, Musgrove, John
D, 2, 69%, 1840, 831, 1009, #29, Bozeman, Jent, Larry
D, 1, 69%, 1138, 514, 624, #46, Great Falls, Wilson, Bill
D, 1, 68%, 2194, 1031, 1163, #47, Great Falls, Dickenson, Sue
D, 2, 68%, 2810, 1345, 1465, #52, Helena, Gallik, Dave
D, 2, 65%, 1361, 741, 620, #17, Billings, Branae, Gary
D, 2, 64%, 1600, 883, 717, #68, Missoula, Wanzenried, David
D, 2, 64%, 2097, 1175, 922, #53, Helena, Kaufmann, Christine
D, 1, 62%, 1627, 1002, 625, #92, Box Elder, Windy Boy, Jonathan
D, 4, 61%, 1727, 1114, 613, #11, Billings, Gillan, Kim
D, 3, 61%, 2268, 1467, 801, #64, Missoula, Erickson, Ron
D, 1, 60%, 1595, 1043, 552, #06, Lodge Grass, Small-Eastman, Veronica
D, 3, 60%, 2513, 1663, 850, #35, Butte, Gallus, Steve
D, 1, 60%, 1640, 915, 725, #42, Great Falls, Franklin, Eve
D, 2, 57%, 1237, 922, 315, #05, Lame Deer, Bixby, Norma
D, 1, 57%, 2010, 1506, 504, #51, East Helena, Cohenour, Jill
D, 2, 56%, 1589, 1250, 339, #16, Billings, Forrester, Gary
D, 2, 56%, 1703, 1144, 559, #43, Great Falls, Callahan, Tim
D, 3, 55%, 1672, 1351, 321, #07, Huntley, Lindeen, Monica
D, 1, 55%, 1621, 1312, 309, #86, Valier, Ballantyne, Norman
D, 2, 55%, 2246, 1829, 417, #69, Missoula, Fritz, Nancy Rice
D, 2, 55%, 1470, 1218, 252, #82, Libby, Carney, Eileen
D, 2, 54%, 1946, 1672, 274, #70, Missoula, Raser, Holly
D, 1, 53%, 1279, 1066, 213, #45, Great Falls, Parker, John
D, 1, 53%, 1506, 1338, 168, #18, Billings, Becker, Arlene
D, 1, 53%, 1654, 1479, 175, #20, Billings, Gibson, Carol
D, 1, 51%, 1486, 1432, 54, #90, Havre, Bergren, Bob
D, 2, 51%, 1435, 1393, 42, #78, Kalispell, Dowell, Tim
D, 1, 50%, 937, 854, 83, #13, Billings, Weiss, Sandy
D, 2, 49%, 1539, 1339, 200, #73, Arlee, Jayne, Joey
D, 1, 45%, 511, 492, 19, #41, Stockett, Ryan, Brennan

Senate

P, T, Win%, Win#, Opp#, Margin, Dist#, Residence, Last Name, First Name
R, 1, 100%, 6530, 0, 6530, #47, Winifred, Butcher, Edward
R, 1, 100%, 7636, 0, 7636, #25, Augusta, Cobb, John
R, 2, 100%, 7371, 0, 7371, #40, Whitefish, Depratu, Bob
R, 1, 100%, 5271, 0, 5271, #04, Roundup, Gebhardt, Kelly
R, 2, 100%, 6700, 0, 6700, #20, Clancy, Grimes, Duane
R, 2, 100%, 6562, 0, 6562, #38, Bigfork, Keenan, Bob
R, 1, 100%, 6075, 0, 6075, #48, Glasgow, Kitzenberg, Sam
R, 1+h, 100%, 6140, 0, 6140, #30, Victor, Laible, Rick
R, 2, 100%, 5182, 0, 5182, #50, Sidney, McNutt, Walter
R, 1, 100%, 6003, 0, 6003, #42, Columbia Falls, O'Neil, Jerry
R, 1+h, 100%, 6632, 0, 6632, #12, Park City, Story, Robert
R, 2, 100%, 6555, 0, 6555, #37, Proctor, Taylor, Mike
R, 1, 74%, 6470, 2299, 4171, #17, Dillon, Tash, Bill
R, 1, 71%, 7737, 3084, 4653, #05, Billings, Johnson, Royal
R, 1+h, 69%, 4312, 1935, 2377, #41, Fortine, Curtiss, Aubyn
R, 1, 68%, 4652, 2174, 2478, #02, Miles City, Zook, Tom
R, 1, 66%, 5680, 2900, 2780, #16, Manhattan, Perry, Gary
R, 3, 62%, 4097, 2516, 1581, #39, Kalispell, Barkus, Gregory
R, 2, 62%, 2769, 1712, 1057, #07, Billings, Bohlinger, John
R, 1+h, 61%, 3957, 2526, 1431, #11, Laurel, McGee, Daniel
R, 2, 59%, 5717, 4018, 1699, #35, Missoula, Mahlum, Dale
R, 2, 58%, 6507, 4251, 2256, #31, Stevensville, Thomas, Fred
R, 1, 58%, 3693, 2701, 992, #44, Shelby, Black, Jerry
R, 2, 57%, 4658, 3482, 1176, #08, Huntley, Glaser, William
R, 1+h, 57%, 4034, 3081, 953, #13, Big Timber, Esp, John
R, 2, 57%, 3889, 2978, 911, #06, Billings, Sprague, Mike
R, 1+h, 54%, 3473, 2910, 563, #01, Otter, Bales, Keith
R, 1, 52%, 3420, 3100, 320, #28, Deer Lodge, Anderson, Sherm
R, 1, 51%, 4165, 4005, 160, #10, Billings, Stapleton, Corey
D, 2, 100%, 4554, 0, 4554, #33, Missoula, Ellingson, Jon
D, 1+h, 100%, 3237, 0, 3237, #23, Great Falls, Mangan, Jeff
D, 2, 100%, 6463, 0, 6463, #29, Anaconda, McCarthy, Bea
D, 2, 100%, 5110, 0, 5110, #49, Medicine Lake, Nelson, Linda
D, 1, 81%, 5673, 1330, 4343, #19, Butte, Harrington, Dan
D, 2, 71%, 4646, 1879, 2767, #45, Big Sandy, Tester, Jon
D, 1+h, 71%, 4096, 1664, 2432, #24, Great Falls, Tropila, Joseph
D, 2, 69%, 6194, 2769, 3425, #18, Butte, Bowman-Shea, Debbie
D, 1, 68%, 5314, 2487, 2827, #26, Helena, Cooney, Mike
D, 1, 68%, 3572, 1686, 1886, #34, Missoula, Squires, Carolyn
D, 1+h, 64%, 2429, 1365, 1064, #21, Great Falls, Schmidt, Trudi
D, 1, 62%, 3011, 1828, 1183, #46, Harlem, Hansen, Ken
D, 2, 60%, 6173, 4067, 2106, #32, Missoula, Cocchiarella, Vicki
D, 1, 60%, 3853, 2618, 1235, #15, Bozeman, Swanson-Stonington, Emily
D, 2, 59%, 2907, 2002, 905, #43, Cut Bank, Roush, Glenn
D, 1, 57%, 3696, 2782, 914, #22, Great Falls, Ryan, Don
D, 1, 54%, 2675, 2269, 406, #09, Billings, Cromley, Brent
D, 1, 52%, 2677, 2472, 205, #03, Lodge Grass, Pease, Gerald
D, 1, 51%, 4346, 4106, 240, #27, Helena, Toole, Ken
D, 1, 51%, 5328, 5082, 246, #14, Bozeman, Wheat, Michael
D, 1, 50%, 4413, 4326, 87, #36, Trout Creek, Elliott, Jim

Sources:
http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/legislat/house03.html
http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/legislat/senate03.html
http://sos.state.mt.us/textonly/ELB/Contents.asp

Alaska

Six of the thirteen Democrat House Members are in/from Anchorage.

House

P, T, Win%, Win#, Opp.#, Other, Margin, Dist.#, City/Town, Last Name, First Name, State-City Born, Yrs.Res., Age, Occupation, Other info
R, 2, 97%, 3756, 0, 106, 3756, #36, Kodiak, Stevens , Gary, OR - McMinnville, 31, 62, Professor Univ. of Alaska, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough / Mayor City of Kodiak
R, 3, 97%, 4014, 0, 126, 4014, #06, Aniak, Morgan , Carl, AK - Upper Kalskag, 53, 53, Electrician, member of NRA and of IBEW
R, 3, 97%, 5513, 0, 180, 5513, #11, North Pole, Coghill, John Jr., AK - Fairbanks, 53, 53, Administrative Asst. / History Teacher, Prior USAF SSgt
R, 2, 96%, 4891, 0, 182, 4891, #30, Anchorage, Meyer , Kevin, NE - Beatrice, 23, 47, Purchasing Rep. for Phillips Alaska, prior Assemblyman of Anchorage 1993 - present
R, 5, 96%, 4515, 0, 183, 4515, #27, Anchorage, Rokeberg, Norman, WA - Seattle, 54, 60, Realtor / co-owner of Powerhouse Gym, Anchorage Budget Advisory Commission
R, 3, 95%, 3116, 0, 180, 3116, #10, Fairbanks, Whitaker , Jim, WA - Bremerton, 44, 53, Small Business Owner, Fairbanks City Council 1995-8; BS Journalism Univ. of Oregon
R, 1, 94%, 4761, 0, 284, 4761, #35, Homer, Seaton, Paul, CA - Oxnard, 30, 58, Fisherman / Fish tender vessel owner operator, member Seward Port and Harbor Commission
R, 3, 94%, 4262, 0, 263, 4262, #12, Valdez, Harris , John, AK - Glennallen, 46, 46, Teamster / Owner of Valdez Industrial Supply, Valdez City Council / Mayor of Valdez
R, 6, 94%, 3973, 0, 250, 3973, #01, Saxman, Williams , Bill, AK - Ketchikan, 60, 60, Longshoreman, City Council and Mayor of Saxton 1976-1992
R, 1, 93%, 2231, 0, 161, 161, #18, Anchorage, Dahlstrom , Nancy, MD - Baltimore, 23, 46, Marketing Management, Masters in Organizational Mgmt.
R, 5, 81%, 4976, 1140, 35, 3836, #17, Eagle River, Kott , Pete, MI - Flint, 19, 54, Co-Owner of Kott's Hardwood Flooring, USAF (retired Captain)
R, 2, 76%, 4812, 1368, 184, 3444, #28, Anchorage, McGuire , Lesil, OR - Portland, 29, 24, Attorney / Self Employed, Various social(ist) services organizations (RINO?)
R, 1, 74%, 4665, 1564, 98, 3101, #16, Chugiak, Stoltze, Bill, AK - Anchorage, 42, 42, State House Rep., Chugiak Community Council / staff of Senate Pres.&Speaker of House
R, 2, 71%, 4287, 1700, 41, 2587, #34, Nikiski, Chenault , Mike, NM - Hobbs, 33, 46, VP of Construction Company / Grad of Kenai Central High School,
R, 5, 64%, 3716, 1916, 173, 1800, #14, Wasilla, Kohring , Vic, IL - Waukegan, 40, 45, Construction, past member of various Mat-Su Commissions and Boards
R, 1, 62%, 2918, 1797, 16, 1121, #19, Anchorage, Anderson, Tom, AK - Anchorage, 36, 36, Attorney /Gov’t Affairs Consultant, Anchorage School Board / MA Public Admin.
R, 1, 61%, 4323, 2702, 24, 1621, #31, Anchorage, Lynn, Bob, CA - East Los Angeles, <10?, 70, Retired, USAF officer / Councilman & Mayor Pro-Tem of Moreno Valley CA
R, 1, 61%, 2540, 1600, 24, 940, #29, Anchorage, Samuels, Ralph, AK - Anchorage, 42, 42, Airline Exec. / Businessman, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce board member
R, 5, 60%, 3476, 1763, 573, 1713, #15, Willow, Masek , Beverly, AK - Anvik, 42, 42, Business owner, Commissioner: Alaska Native Commission
R, 2, 59%, 3527, 2443, 10, 1084, #02, Wrangell, Wilson , Peggy, IA - Anamosa, 9, 58, Registered Nurse, 3 terms in North Carolina House of Representatives
R, 2, 57%, 4366, 3274, 21, 1092, #07, Fairbanks, Fate, Hugh "Bud" , WA ?, 52, 74, Dentist, Private Pilot
R, 1, 56%, 3623, 2139, 660, 1484, #13, Palmer, Gatto, Carl, NY - New York, 35, 66, Firefighter (retired), VP School Board / Mat-Su Rec. Board / Valley Hosp. Board
R, 1, 55%, 4044, 3318, 13, 726, #04, Juneau, Weyhrauch , Bruce, NE - Lincoln, 25, 50, Attorney, Juneau Port Authority and Economic Development Council
R, 2, 52%, 2642, 2417, 6, 225, #09, Fairbanks, Holm , Jim, CA - Glendale, 56, 58, CEO of Holm Nursery, Assemblyman of Fairbanks North Star Borough
R, 1, 52%, 3056, 2842, 23, 214, #33, Kenai, Wolf, Kelly, WA - Longview, 24, 42, Contractor & Carpenter, Grad of Kenai Central High School
R, 1, 50%, 3890, 3854, 20, 36, #32, Anchorage, Hawker, Mike, IA - Manchester, 24, 47, CPA / Business & accounting consultant, NRA life member / Gun Collectors Associations
R, 1, 49%, 2290, 1921, 479, 369, #24, Anchorage, Heinze, Cheryll, OK - Wewoka, 57, 52, Professional Artist, Member of Anchorage Symphony Orchestra
D, 4, 98%, 3186, 0, 72, 3186, #40, Kotzebue, Joule , Reggie, AK - Nome, 51, 51, Administrator / Project Mgr for Kotzebue IRA, Governor's council on Disabilities & Special Ed.
D, 8, 98%, 3464, 0, 85, 3464, #39, Nome, Foster , Richard, AK - Nome, 57, 57, Air Taxi (retired), Nome City Council / Nome P&Z Commission/ /US Army Capt. 3yrs Vietnam
D, 3, 97%, 3326, 0, 93, 3326, #38, Bethel, Kapsner , Mary, AK - Anchorage, 30, 30, Bethel coordinator for Seafood Co., BS Univ. N. Colorado / Commercial Fisherman
D, 10, 96%, 2864, 0, 113, 2864, #37, Unalaska, Moses, Carl, CA - Santa Cruz, 70, 74, Merchant / President of Carl's Inc., Unalaska Chamber of Commerce Board
D, 1, 94%, 3559, 0, 226, 3559, #23, Anchorage, Gara , Les, NY - New York, 40, 15, Attorney / writer, Asst. Attorney General / Law clerk Alaska Supreme Court
D, 3, 65%, 4999, 2673, 25, 2326, #03, Juneau, Kerttula , Beth, OK - Guthrie, 47, 47, Attorney, BA Political Science from Stanford / J.D. from Univ. of Santa Clara
D, 4, 57%, 3265, 2471, 20, 794, #05, Angoon, Kookesh , Albert, AK - Juneau, 55, 55, Lodge Owner / Store Owner, Chairman of the Board of Alaska Federation of Natives
D, 4, 56%, 2529, 1935, 16, 594, #25, Anchorage, Croft , Eric, AK - Anchorage, 39, 39, Attorney / Business Owner, BS Electrical Engineering
D, 4, 56%, 3621, 2717, 145, 904, #26, Anchorage, Berkowitz, Ethan, CA - San Francisco, 13, 41, Attorney /Businessman / prior Asst. District Attorney,
D, 3, 54%, 2323, 1954, 10, 369, #22, Anchorage, Cissna, Sharon, WA - Seattle, 36, 61, Business Owner / Mental Health Counselor,
D, 1, 52%, 3656, 3144, 297, 512, #08, Fairbanks, Guttenberg, David, NY - New York, 33, 52, Construction Worker, prior Legislative Finance Aide
D, 2, 48%, 2905, 2670, 425, 235, #21, Anchorage, Crawford, Harry, LA - Shreveport, 26, 51, Iron Worker, Exec. Board of Iron Workers Local #751
D, 5, 48%, 1403, 1372, 135, 31, #20, Anchorage, Gruenberg, Max, CA - San Francisco, 33, 50, Attorney, US Navy Lt. Vietnam / Alaska House of Rep. 1985-93

Senate

Due to redistricting all but three of the twenty seats were up for election in 2002 even though they normally are four-year terms.

The biographical info on each senator at the Alaska legislature site is worth looking at. The level of education, experience, and connections these Senators have is awesome or intimidating. Note especially the family interconnections of State Senators, Governors, and US Senators. See the links at the end for more info.

P, T, Win%, Win#, Opp.#, Other, Margin, Dist.#, City/Town, Last Name, First Name, State-City Born, Res, Age, Occupation, Other info
R, 1+1, 96%, 9371, 0, 350, 9371, #N, Anchorage, Stevens, Ben, Washington DC, 44, 44, Owner: Alaska Seafood Marketing Inst., Son of US Senator Ted Stevens / Washington lobbyist
R, 2+3, 96%, 7604, 0, 287, 7604, #R, Kodiak, Austerman, Alan, WA - Everett, 60, 60, various private businesses, Kodiak Island Borough Assembly / grad of Kodiak High School
R, 1+4, 92%, 9407, 0, 780, 9407, #H, Palmer, Ogan, Scott, OH - Columbus, 28, 51, Cabinet Maker / Business Owner, Private pilot / High School Florida / Univ of Alaska 1977 Welding
R, 2+4, 82%, 8912, 1906, 75, 7006, #F, North Pole, Therriault, Gene, AK - Fairbanks, 43, 43, Partner of welding & other businesses, Board of Director of business
R, 3, 76%, 9192, 2787, 60, 6405, #G, Wasilla, Green, Lyda, TX - Livingston, 39, 65, Former Business Owner and Educator, member of state Special Ed Task Forces
R, 1+3, 76%, 6810, 2094, 25, 4716, #I, Eagle River, Dyson, Fred, B.C. - Vancouver, 39, 64, Engineer / Commercial Fisherman, Anchorage Municipal Assembly 1985-91
R, 3, 70%, 6242, 2405, 299, 3837, #E, Fairbanks, Wilken, Gary, WA - Tacoma, 42, 57, Small Business Owner, Lots of community boards / BS & MBA from Oregon State Univ.
R, 1+5, 67%, 9937, 4828, 56, 5109, #P, Anchorage, Bunde, Con, MN - Mankato, 35, 65, Professor Univ. of Alaska (retired), M.S. Speech&Hearing Path. Central Wash. Univ.
R, 2+3, 59%, 6043, 4119, 21, 1924, #O, Anchorage, Cowdery, John, MO - n/a, 53, 73, Contractor (retired), Manager of Municipality of Anchorage
R, 3+4, 54%, 7164, 6096, 66, 1068, #A, Wrangell, Taylor, Robin, WA - Sendro Woolley, 42, 60, Attorney, District Court Judge / Borough Assembly/City Council/Vice Mayor: Ketchikan
R, 1, 52%, 7861, 7190, 46, 671, #D, Fairbanks, Seekins, Ralph, MN - Duluth, 30, 58, Automobile Dealer, Chair of Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.
R, 1, 46%, 5638, 5515, 1086, 123, #Q, Kenai, Wagoner, Thomas, MD - Pylesville, 34, 61, Kenai City Council & Mayor / BA and MA Education Univ. of Alaska,
D, 1, 97%, 8434, 0, 238, 8434, #T, Nome, Olson, Donald, AK - Nome, 50, 50, M.D. / Prof. Pilot / Reindeer Herder / Businessman, Alaska State Medical Board
D, 4+3, 67%, 4557, 2241, 27, 2316, #S, Bethel, Hoffman, Lyman, AK - Bethel, 53, 53, Owner of drilling & welding & gas companies, City Manager of Bethel 1977-85
D, 4+1, 57%, 6093, 4507, 24, 1586, #C, Rampart, Lincoln, Georgianna, AK - Fairbanks, 60, 60, Commercial Fisherperson, Local-State Tribal Relations TF/ AK Commission on Judicial Conduct
D, 1, 57%, 6226, 4666, 26, 1560, #M, Anchorage, French, Hollis, MA - Newton, 25, 45, Attorney / Apartment owner, Underage Drinking Task Force / MADD
D, 4+3, 52%, 4924, 4434, 34, 490, #L, Anchorage, Ellis, Johnny, MO - Springfield, 28, 43, Owner of Wholesale Gift Business, Task Forces on Health & Pregancy & Parenting
D, 2+2, 51%, 7987, 7570, 25, 417, #B, Juneau, Elton, Kim, MT - Havre, 42, 55, Contractor / Writer / Legislator, Juneau Borough Assembly member
D, 1+3, 51%, 6973, 6715, 50, 258, #K, Anchorage, Davis, Bettye, LA - n/a, 36, 65, Nurse/Social worker (retired), Anchorage School Board / Alaska Black Caucus
D, 1+1, 50%, 3808, 3758, 21, 50, #J, Anchorage, Guess, Gretchen, AK - Anchorage, 34, 34, Business Analyst, Consultant: RAND Corp. / MS Public Policy Analysis

Sen. Dahlstorm was appointed to replace Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Gov. Frank Murkowski's daughter) who was appointed to the US Senate (above votes were for Murkowski - an attorney)

Sources:
http://murkowski.senate.gov/bio.htm
http://www.adn.com/front/story/2351447p-2407084c.html
http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/house/23/house.htm
http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/senate/23/senate.htm
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/distleg.htm
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/02genr/data/results.htm
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/elect00/00genr/data/results.htm

Delaware

Note the proportion of both Senate and House whose members won by very high percentages or were unopposed! Also note how many have multiple and even many, many terms experience. There are only two first-term Senators and only six first-term Representatives. The third column for number of terms in the Senate includes the number of terms in the House (6+1 means 6 in Senate, 1 in House).

Folks, if you think that getting FSP'ers elected in substantial numbers to either the Senate or House... Think again! And look closely at the experience and occupations of these incumbents. The first link at the end of this post also takes you to a listing of members for which each has a page with their photo and other info. Without term limits, and there are none in Delaware, you won't be gaining control of this legislature in your lifetime!

House

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist.#, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
Democrat, 100%, 1, #05, George, Melanie L., Attorney; adjunct professor of law, Widener Law School
Democrat, 100%, 16, #19, Gilligan, Robert F., Counselor, Delaware Tech
Democrat, 100%, 11, #16, Houghton, William I., Full-time Legislator
Democrat, 100%, 3, #17, Mulrooney, Michael P., Electrician, L.U. 313
Democrat, 100%, 2, #02, Plant, Hazel D., Full-Time Legislator
Democrat, 100%, 11, #13, Van Sant, John F., Instructor, Security Coordinator, Delaware Technical & CC
Democrat, 100%, 6, #01, Williams, Dennis P., Deputy Director, Wilmington's Downtown Clean & Safe Team
Democrat, 96%, 3, #26, Viola, John J., Technician, Gaylord Container Corp.
Democrat, 74%, 4, #03, Keeley, Helene M., Project Manager, Rosenbluth International
Democrat, 63%, 1, #14, Schwartzkopf, Peter C., Retired State Police Captain, full-time lawmaker
Democrat, 61%, 1, #08, Hall-Long, Bethany A., Associate professor, University of Delaware
Democrat, 60%, 11, #28, Ennis, Bruce C., Investigator
Republican, 100%, 12, #34, Buckworth, Gerald A., Retired - Principal, Caesar Rodney School District
Republican, 100%, 6, #09, Cathcart, Richard C., Director of Purchasing and General Services, DSU
Republican, 100%, 9, #04, Di Pinto, Joseph G., Retired, Dupont Company
Republican, 100%, 5, #12, Hudson, Deborah, Full-time Legislator
Republican, 100%, 7, #40, Lee, Clifford G. "Biff", Retired; Full-time Legislator
Republican, 100%, 7, #27, Lofink, Vincent A., School-to-Work Coordinator, NCC Vo-Tech School District
Republican, 100%, 5, #21, Maier, Pamela S., English Instructor, Del Tech Stanton; Substitute teacher.
Republican, 100%, 3, #22, Miro, Joseph E., Teacher, Christina School District
Republican, 100%, 14, #24, Oberle, William A., Development Manager, Dupont, Retired
Republican, 100%, 14, #20, Roy, Roger P., Executive Director, TMA New Castle County
Republican, 100%, 12, #18, Spence, Terry R., Account Executive, Brooks Courier Service
Republican, 93%, 9, #35, Ewing, J. Benjamin, Retired, Lt. Colonel, Delaware State Police
Republican, 92%, 3, #10, Valihura, Robert J., Attorney, Private Practice
Republican, 71%, 2, #29, Thornburg, Pamela J., Full-time Legislator
Republican, 67%, 13, #39, Fallon, Tina, Retired Teacher
Republican, 67%, 10, #36, Carey, V. George, President, Carey Farms, Inc.
Republican, 66%, 14, #30, Quillen, George Robert, Full-Time Legislator
Republican, 66%, 2, #11, Lavelle, Gregory F., Financial Analyst, Puglisi and Associates
Republican, 63%, 6, #31, Wagner, Nancy H., Technical Prep. Coordinator, Capital School District
Republican, 63%, 12, #06, Ennis, David H., Management Consultant, Delaware Tech. Community College
Republican, 62%, 9, #33, Caulk, G. Wallace, Farmer & Administrator for Delaware Farm Bureau
Republican, 60%, 5, #25, Ulbrich, Stephanie A., Full-time Legislator
Republican, 60%, 1, #41, Atkins, John C., N/A
Republican, 56%, 5, #32, Stone, Donna D., Real Estate Broker& Manager, Emerson & Co., Realtors
Republican, 55%, 9, #15, Reynolds, Bruce C., Teacher, Coach, William Penn High School
Republican, 53%, 5, #23, Boulden, Timothy U., Vice President, Boulden Oil & Propane Co.
Republican, 52%, 7, #07, Smith, Wayne A., Investment Banker - VP, Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC
Republican, 50%, 1, #37, Booth, Joseph W., N/A
Republican, 50%, 1, #38, Hocker, Gerald W., N/A

Senate

Party, Win%, Terms, Dist.#, Last Name, First Name, Occupation
Democrat, 100%, 3, #02*, Henry, Margaret Rose, Executive Director, Girls Inc.
Democrat, 100%, 5, #07**, Blevins, Patricia M., Full-time Legislator
Democrat, 100%, 2, #11*, DeLuca, Anthony J., Electrician
Democrat, 100%, 6+1, #13**, McBride, David B., Legislator, Civil Engineer, Helicon Integrated Systems
Democrat, 100%, 9, #15**, Cook, Nancy W., Legislator/Homemaker
Democrat, 100%, 5, #21*, Venables, Robert L., President, W.B.Venables & Sons
Democrat, 75%, 7, #03*, Marshall, Robert I., Director, Delaware Skills Center
Democrat, 64%, 7, #01**, McDowell, Harris B., Self-employed
Democrat, 64%, 8, #19**, Adams, Thurman G., President, T.G. Adams & Sons, Inc.
Democrat, 60%, 6+2, #20**, Bunting, George H., State Farm Insurance Agency
Democrat, 59%, 7, #14**, Vaughn, James T., Retired
Democrat, 58%, 1, #09**, Peterson, Karen E., N/A
Democrat, 51%, 5, #08**, Sokola, David P., Research Lab Technician, DuPont Experimental Station
Republican, 100%, 1+2, #05**, Cloutier, Catherine A., District manager, K & M Associates
Republican, 100%, 2, #12**, Connor, Dorinda A. "Dori", Full-time Legislator / Homemaker
Republican, 100%, 5, #17*, Still, John C., Insurance Broker
Republican, 72%, 1, #04*, Copeland, Charles L.,
Republican, 67%, 3, #16*, Bonini, Colin R. J., Marketing Rep., James C. Anderson Associates
Republican, 59%, 3+3, #10*, Amick, Steven H., Lawyer, Cooch and Taylor
Republican, 57%, 2, #18*, Simpson, F. Gary, Alumni and University Relations, University of Delaware
Republican, 55%, 3+1, #06*, Sorenson, Liane M., Director of Women's Affairs, University of Delaware
*=1998, etc. election cycle
**=2000, etc. election cycle
all the Senators stood for election or re-election in 2002 due to re-apportionment.

Sources (make sure you have Java turned on for these links):
http://www.legis.state.de.us/Legislature.nsf/?Opendatabase
http://www.state.de.us/election/past_results.html
http://www.state.de.us/election/gen2002/election.html

State Report VT 2: Second Vermont Report

Vermont Report #2

by Jason P. Sorens

(This "report" is a series of reflections on a recent trip to Vermont. See also Vermont Report #1.)

I arrived at the Burlington airport on Saturday around noon and met Robert Maynard, the president of Citizens for Property Rights in Vermont. We had lunch and chatted about the state of the libertarian movement in Vermont.

The Vermont Libertarian Party split in 2000. The leadership at the time was strongly anti-conservative and expelled those who were opposed to the civil unions law, including the lone Libertarian representative in the state house, Neil Randall. (He was elected as a Libertarian/Republican.) The civil unions issue was not the only reason for the split. There was a major disagreement in strategy. The leadership wished to pursue a purist, intellectual course and rejected making alliances with the Take Back Vermont movement and its "populist" approach. Although Take Back Vermont has been most closely associated with the civil unions issue, the movement actually started in 1998 with opposition to the school funding law, Act 60, which has resulted in a significant increase in property taxes in many parts of the state.

Robert Maynard was one of those who favored making alliances with the populist conservatives, and he left the Libertarian Party. Neil Randall won re-election in 2000 as a Republican. Robert admits that there are pitfalls in allying with the political right in Vermont, and my subsequent experiences would bear this out. The Take Back Vermont movement is seen as "extremist" or "reactionary" in much of Vermont, certainly the Burlington area. This has to do with the rhetoric and strategy of the movement more than anything else, I believe. At the CPR meeting I was a bit uncomfortable with the way people talked about "the homosexuals", "out-of-state homosexual money," "the homosexual agenda," and similar phrases, as if people who are homosexual are politically or even culturally monolithic. There's also an infamous story about the opponents of Act 60, who protested in front of the capitol and during this protest brought out the old car of a particularly liberal state senator, which they had purchased, and destroyed it with sledgehammers. The grassroots conservatives in Vermont are not exactly slick political operatives, and it's clear they rub many people the wrong way with their blunt, oppositional approach.

The people at the CPR meeting were mostly very favorable to the FSP. I handed out several Statements of Intent and shook hands with Neil Randall, who gave a talk as well. He was defeated in the 2002 election, as were many other quasi-libertarians in the Vermont House. I also met Hardy Macia, an early joiner of the FSP and Vermont LP activist. He ran for the state house as a Libertarian/Republican and came within 100 votes of victory. Neither Hardy nor Neil had held elective political office prior to running for state house. The large size of the house - and small size of districts - makes it relatively easy for newcomers and political neophytes to win election, if they are good campaigners.

After the meeting, I headed out with the NPR folks who are doing a segment on the Free State Project for "This American Life," a national program that runs weekly on NPR stations. We met with one of the leaders of the Progressive Party in Vermont, Anthony Pollina. He ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and won 25% of the vote in a three-way race. Needless to say, he was basically opposed to the Free State Project and insisted that Vermonters would reject our ideas, because they favor "the active engagement of government." It was difficult for me to reply to this, because he was a Vermont resident and I was not, although I knew that many of my views were shared by Vermonters, particularly those of the old stock. The reporters asked where he was from, and it turns out he moved from New Jersey to Vermont in the early 1970s. "So didn't you do exactly what Jason is planning to do?" they asked. He grinned at that and backpedalled somewhat. "Well, if you're coming to Vermont for the quality of life and will work toward strengthening our communities, you're certainly welcome," he replied.

After the interview, I returned to Robert Maynard's home, where I was spending the night. We stayed up and talked politics some more. I presented the idea of a non-partisan voters' league to him, and he thought that was an idea that could work particularly well in Vermont. "The problem in Vermont is that you need the grassroots conservatives for your activists, but you also need to be able to reach out to rank-and-file progressives and moderates and not scare the bejeezus out of them," he said. "For that, you'll need an effective leadership. But I think the Take Back Vermont folks are learning very quickly how to play the political game." He said that, historically, Vermont was the most libertarian state in the country, the only state to oppose FDR and the New Deal, and the state that gave the country Calvin Coolidge, the 20th century's most libertarian president. However, it has changed a great deal since the 1960s, and now New Hampshire is more libertarian than Vermont. Robert, a fourth-generation Vermonter, said that he'd be unable to move from Vermont, since he had recently bought a new business, but said that putting his biases aside, he believed Vermont and New Hampshire were about equal in potential for success. New Hampshire is about "ten years behind" Vermont in the march to statism, and has a much better organized conservative-libertarian movement than Vermont. But Vermont is smaller, the town meeting tradition is stronger in Vermont, and Vermont's history is an asset. Robert believes that land area is a crucial consideration: to form a grassroots movement you will have to hold town meetings around the state, and short driving distances are essential for these. A potentially workable alternative is a state that has a few population centers, in each of which we would have significant concentrations of activists. He lent me The Vermont Papers by Bryan and McClaughry.

The next day, the NPR reporters and I met with the mayor of Burlington. He is Bernie Sanders' successor to the post and runs as a Progressive. Nevertheless, he is much more moderate than Sanders. He was also a bit more welcoming than Pollina, though he said that we would be unable to "take over" the state, due to Vermonters' liberal views and resistance to outsiders. He believed that we would become a significant part of the general Vermont milieu, merely one group among a diversity of ideological groups. He did mention several times that he believed Progressives and Libertarians had quite a few things in common. He even admitted that Vermont's regulatory process had become unworkable, and that it needed to be streamlined in order to work for small business, something that Pollina had refused to concede. However, he said that he was committed to strengthening code enforcement in Burlington and providing subsidies for people to buy homes. Government apparently has a fairly significant role in funding home purchases in Vermont. This, when combined with the congested permit process for new developments, probably is a significant cause of the housing shortage in Vermont, which is something almost everyone we talked to mentioned as a problem in getting 20,000 people to settle in the state. When government subsidizes home-buying, it pushes up demand for homes, and when the regulatory process prevents supply from adjusting, we have a shortage. The reporters asked the mayor to draw a map of Vermont and show which parts of the state would be most supportive of our movement. He drew Vermont and New Hampshire, indicated the Connecticut River as the border between the two, and drew an arrow from Vermont to New Hampshire. "That's where you need to go, across the river." We had a good laugh about that.

After meeting with the mayor, we walked around the restaurant and spoke to some "ordinary Vermonters." Since we were in downtown Burlington, most of them were definitely progressive types. We did meet one fellow who described himself as basically libertarian, and said that he voted for both Libertarians and Progressives in local races. He said he did this because he wanted all views to be heard. This seemed to be a common thread in responses to our idea. Vermonters are natively anti-establishment. I can't remember exactly how, but I got into a debate with one fellow over separation of school & state. I wasn't completely well prepared for that discussion, and though I had arguments for every point he made, I don't think I brought them down to a readily understandable level. One good analogy to use to make the case for separation (which I only thought of much later) is to compare education to other industries. Kids have a right to be fed as much as educated, so does that mean restaurants and grocery stores should be government owned and operated? Of course not - and you can talk about why government ownership of groceries & restaurants would fail: lack of choice & competition resulting in declines in quality, the necessity of rationing to control demand for a "free" service, etc. All these arguments apply equally well to schooling.

After this we met with the principal of Burlington High School. As could be expected, she was pretty much a typical NEA type who rejected all significant reform of government schooling out of hand. Bush-ian "quality control" was about the most she was willing to consider. She said we "should probably move out to Idaho or somewhere, where I hear a lot of people own guns and homeschool and hate the government." This wasn't a particularly productive conversation.

We then visited with Mary Alice McKenzie, a business owner and major figure in the Republican Party in Vermont. Apparently her name has been mentioned in the past as a potential gubernatorial candidate. She described her political views as "very fiscally conservative and socially liberal." She's basically a libertarian! She's also a pragmatist, though, and was very complimentary toward the mayor of Burlington, crediting him with repealing some of the more egregiously anti-business measures instituted by Bernie Sanders when he was mayor. She thought the political model of the Free State Project was sound and believed that we would have a major impact if we moved there. Her main caveat was the economy. She said that regulations were stifling jobs growth, and that lack of risk capital would make it very difficult to start new businesses. She was very interested in and supportive of our efforts otherwise, however. It was heartening to hear such a major figure in Vermont support our efforts.

The last interview was with a part-time lobbyist for the forestry industry, an acknowledged libertarian who studied under Milton Friedman and Gary Becker at Chicago, where he did graduate work in economics. The reporters asked him if he would consider signing up for the Free State Project, and he said he would, though he was committed to working in Vermont. So I gave him a form, and he signed up on tape, opting out of all states except Vermont. I asked him how much of the state legislature was already libertarian. He estimated that matters were better now than they were a few years ago, and that a third of the house (50 members) were friendly to our ideas. I have a feeling this includes a lot of conservatives, and maybe some iconoclastic liberals. He said there were 25-30 real socialists in the house, and of the 50 who support us, 15 were true libertarians through and through. So that's 10% of the state house that we would "have" right away when we move in.

Some things I noticed from all the conversations I've had this weekend are: 1) A good way to introduce the Free State Project is to say that we are researching states based on their favorability to ideas of smaller government and more individual freedom, for the purpose of promoting one state as the best place for Americans with such ideas to settle and live. This way it sounds less like a hostile takeover, which it really isn't, in my view. 2) Vermonters value independence and non-conformity, and evaluate candidates more on personal characteristics than ideology. 3) You don't need a lot of political experience to win state house seats. Nevertheless, political liberals seemed to have a lot more experience than political conservatives. They are more willing to serve on boards and commissions and make a career out of politics. 4) There aren't many native Vermonters left, at least in Burlington! I think we met only two native Vermonters out of all the people we spoke to. A couple people mentioned that most of the state legislative seats are occupied by non-natives. Whether you are a native or not doesn't have much relevance for political success. 5) Ideological polarization lies beneath the surface in Vermont, though people are quick to deny it. The mayor of Burlington claimed that it was an "urban myth" to think that there was a coordinated attempt by leftists to take over Vermont in the 1970s. Conservatives insist that there was, and Robert Maynard mentioned a few stories and episodes that suggest to me that there was such a coordinated attempt, though more loosely organized than the FSP. Overall, this issue is a very touchy one in Vermont. 6) Vermonters are proud of their heritage of town government, even though state government has increasingly taken functions away from local government. Decentralization could be a major winning issue for a libertarian movement in Vermont. 7) It's cold! I like it, though. There was a good bit of snow on the ground, perhaps a foot in some places, and it snowed gently most of the time I was there. The winter could wear on some people, but complaining about the weather is looked down upon in Vermont. There was one facetious suggestion that to keep out riff-raff, the highways should not be plowed.

It was a productive and fascinating journey. I wish I could do a tour of this kind in all the states we're considering.

February 5, 2003

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.

What the Spreadsheets Tell Us

What the Spreadsheets Tell Us

by Paul Bonneau ("Zxcv")

In this article I will examine different inferences that can be drawn from manipulations of the spreadsheets.

Some, who are not familiar with spreadsheets, may find this exposition a little slow-going. For them I'd just suggest skimming, and noting how the state rankings worked out in each section, along with the tentative conclusions following the rankings. The rankings are always presented with the most desirable states at the left.

Freedom Culture Personal Freedom Economic Freedom Government spending tendencies Government taxing tendencies Our activist opposition Charting long range trends Predicting FSP population in the different states Using the full spreadsheet To conclude… Appendix

I refer to two spreadsheets. The "standard" one is available on the state data page. The "big" spreadsheet is my modification of the standard spreadsheet, which I will make available to anyone who emails me. It is different in the following ways:

1. It has many more rows, 80 at the time of writing. I add new rows whenever quantifiable measures are discovered, as time permits.

2. The normalization used is less unfriendly to low performers than the one used in the standard sheet, for any given variable. For example, if one variable had a 500 in the best state and 400 in the worst, the big spreadsheet normalizes this to be 10 for the best state and 8 for the worst (in other words, it is proportional). The standard spreadsheet would normalize to 10 for the best and 0 for the worst.

3. The normalization allows for intermediate values to be "best", rather than a simple "more is better" or "less is better" rating. A few variables seem better with intermediate values as optimum.

4. There is much more potential for inadvertent "overlap" of the variables in the big spreadsheet, due to the large number of variables there. For example, I have a variable called "Population" and another, "Population2025". These two are so highly correlated that they are almost the same thing. Assigning large weights to both of them would be like assigning all that weight to one of them. So, users must be careful when assigning weights, to avoid overloading the highly correlated variables.

Most of the discussions in this paper will refer to the big spreadsheet.

So, what sorts of things can you discover with spreadsheets?

You can get a good approximation for the "freedom culture" in the state. You can find out which states are good for personal freedom, which for economic freedom. You can get an idea which states have a government that loves to spend. You can find out how many activist opponents we will face. You can see how certain variables changed over time. You can even take a stab at predicting the FSP population that's predicted to move to the different states.

Let's try these out on the big spreadsheet, which is ideal for this purpose because of its numerous variables.

1. Freedom Culture

   To discover what states have a general climate of freedom, we concentrate mainly on what Jason calls the CULTURE variables. We eliminate anything having to do with population, or FSP viability. We also ignore most items in the QUALITY area.

   I used 3 possible weights: 1 for variables if lower importance, 2 for variables of middling importance, and 4 for variables of high importance. Variables get a 4 when they are better, more direct measures of a freedom culture. They get a 1 if they are either are indirect or less sure measures, or those that are not very important.

   These variables were assigned weights of 4:

   Ideology, RLCFreedomPers, RLCFreedomEc

   These variables were assigned weights of 2:

   Dependence, Spending, Taxes, DeathTaxes, Revenue, Debt, Prez, GunControl, Homeschooling, NEATeachers, NEAMonopoly, EdSpendingGSP, EdSpendingPupil, NTU, GovEmp%, GovEmp, RightToWork, EFI, SBSI, EFNA, LandPlanning, SmokingRegs, SeatBelts, BikeHelmets, MCHelmets, AutoInsRegs, HealthMandates, PublicHealthCare, LiquorLaws, MarijuanaLaws, MarijuanaArrests, PeoplePerCop

   These variables were assigned a weight of 1:

   GunOwners1, GunOwners2, AllTeachers, UnionMembers%, UnionMembers, UnionRep%, CPS, CPSAdoptedOut, HuntingRegs, HunterOrange, HunterTraining, DRCPerfRank, DRCBusVitRank, DRCDevCapRank

   The definitions for these variables are found in the Appendix, and discussions about them are found via links in the spreadsheet itself. This particular weighing is stored for your use in the "Weight Vectors" page of the big spreadsheet, with the name "Culture"; if you have the big spreadsheet you may modify it as you like, of course.

   I do not claim these weight assignments make perfect sense. One could obviously make many different choices than I have.

   Let's see what the spreadsheet yielded:

   WY	ID	NH	SD	AK	ND	MT	VT	DE	ME
   681	660	601	594	566	554	534	495	472	442

   So, the conclusion, at least from my weighing, is that Wyoming, Idaho, New Hampshire and South Dakota are the 4 states in our list with the strongest culture of freedom in the people. This is, of course, an indirect measure, as we are assuming that the culture of the people is reflected in the laws and regulations they tolerate living under.

2. Personal Freedom

   I created another weight vector (stored in the spreadsheet weight vectors page under the name "Personal Freedom"). It is similar in concept to the culture exercise above except that the variables associated only with economic freedom were eliminated. And some others, such as the variable PrivateLand, were added, when they seemed to have something to do with personal freedom. The details of this vector may be examined by opening the spreadsheet.

   Here are the results:

   ID	WY	NH	AK	ND	MT	SD	VT	ME	DE
   1,941	1,860	1,747	1,744	1,529	1,518	1,506	1,393	1,192	1,097

   With my weigh vector, Idaho rises to the top in personal freedom; South Dakota looks less friendly (it has dropped substantially from its overall freedom culture measurement). So we can see that we'd have work to do in the personal freedom area, if we picked South Dakota.

3. Economic Freedom

   I created another weight vector (strangely enough called "Economic Freedom", in the weight vectors page). Again it is like the above, except this time we are now considering only the economic side of freedom. Here is the result I get with my weight choice:

   WY	SD	ID	ND	AK	NH	MT	VT	ME	DE
   1,609	1,448	1,446	1,307	1,294	1,233	1,136	959	956	953

   While Wyoming is again in top spot for economic freedom, this is clearly South Dakota's strong suit, essentially tying in second place with Idaho. Somewhat of a disappointment, New Hampshire drops to 6th in this list. And the big surprise is Delaware, with its reputation of being a business haven, only making a poor 10th place showing. I suspect Delaware's reputation is based on its use by large corporations for registering there, not for small business and entrepreneurial advantages; and anyway, other statist trends have been noted recently, in that state.

   In the above weighing I did not give QUALITY variables any weight, being concerned more with freedom per se rather than economic vitality and opportunity (which may be quite good even in very statist states, e.g. California). But I tried another one, like the above but this time factoring in a heavy weighing of QUALITY variables (called EcFreedomAndQuality in the weight vectors page):

   SD	WY	ID	ND	NH	AK	DE	MT	ME	VT
   2,231	2,214	2,013	1,945	1,921	1,875	1,732	1,717	1,598	1,588

4. Government spending tendencies

   I created a weight vector with only these weights: Spending=20, Debt=10, Revenue=Gov2PerCapita=5 (all but Spending are per capita measures; Spending is a per-Gross State Product measure). This was not stored anywhere. The results:

   NH	ID	SD	ND	DE	ME	MT	VT	WY	AK
   330	325	305	284	283	260	257	256	242	176

   Populous states with large Gross State Products and low spending, like New Hampshire and Idaho, do well on this measure of government spending tendencies. It does downgrade states like Wyoming and Alaska that benefit from having mineral resources and investment portfolios; such will tend to spend more than otherwise. Normally we might not downgrade states for spending this money, although the question has to be asked, what are they going to do when the minerals run out? (That's more a problem with Alaska, which has a small supply of oil.) Will they then be hooked on government spending?

   I have to add that Wyoming is unique in this country in having a "no-frills" state-level government. As shown by the 2001 State Expenditure Report of the National Association of State Budget Officers (p. 19 of the .pdf file), outside of the basic spending categories of "education", Medicare, public assistance, corrections and transportation, Wyoming alone in the country spends 0% of its budget in the category "Other". The national average is 32.1% in that category, and my own state of Oregon tops the list with 48.4%!

5. Government taxing tendencies

   I created a weight vector having only these weights: Taxes=20, DeathTaxes=NTU=5. This was not stored anywhere. The results:

   AK	NH	WY	ID	SD	MT	ND	VT	ME	DE
   312	273	261	247	241	218	226	224	218	207

   Interestingly, back in the '70's Alaska had the highest state and local taxes in the nation. For many years now, it has had the lowest in the nation. New Hampshire has also had consistently low taxes over a very long period of time.

   There has been some justifiable concern on the FSP web forum that taxes are not a very reliable measure for us. Not only that, but federal taxes (not part of this measure) dominate state and local taxes. Personally I think focusing on just a few variables, as in the above tax and spending examples, is not a very good way to base one's decision on a state. It does indicate special issues or problems, however.

6. Our activist opposition

   I created a weight vector having only these weights:

   NEATeachers=GovEmp=20
   Dependence=UrbArea%=NEAMonopoly=10
   AllTeachers=GovEmp%=UnionMembers=UnionMembers%=PeoplePerCop=5

   I should explain this choice. First, I have some pairs of variables like UnionMembers and UnionMembers%, that differ only in the "%". The first is the number of union members in the state, the second is the percentage of union members in the state population. The number is more important because it represents how many activists will be directly opposing us. The percentage is less important, but still matters some, because this percentage of the voting public can be assumed will vote against us.

   I chose Dependence because those feeding at the trough will not want to see that trough emptied. I chose UrbArea% because large urban agglomerations are reliable sources of statist opposition. I chose PeoplePerCop because that indicates a bit about the strength of the corrections establishment in the state, which will resist cutting down the War on Drugs and the like. I chose NEAMonopoly because it places powerful tools in the hands of our opponents. The others should be self-explanatory. The results:

   WY	SD	VT	ND	DE	MT	ID	NH	AK	ME
   814	760	731	711	572	522	521	511	490	482

   The large states, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine predictably fall to the bottom; since they are large, our opponents will be numerous there. Surprisingly, despite its socialist reputation, Vermont climbs pretty high. This is no doubt due to its small state status and lack of big cities. It probably shouldn't be that high because we will face strong opposition in dismantling all the statist measures they have enacted. I suppose that demonstrates the fallibility of spreadsheets.

7. Charting long range trends

   I have a long term trend of some data. An example below shows one of our three comprehensive economic indices, the Economic Freedom of North America index (note the horizontal axis is not linear; Frasier Institute first started taking data for this index every 4 years, and now is doing it every year). Charting data this way, while time consuming and difficult, reveals that substantial changes happen over not very long periods of time. With FSP presence in one of these small states, our influence in these sorts of indices should be quite large.

   The charts also suggest other lines of inquiry. For example, what happened in the '89-'93 time frame to harm New Hampshire's position in this index? What did they do later to fix things?

   I include this only as an example of the kind of information long-term data may provide to us. It remains to chart and exploit this for numerous other variables.

8. Predicting FSP population in the different states

   Here we get into the far out limits of what you can do with the spreadsheet. Making such a prediction is extremely problematical, in my opinion; only slightly better than pulling it out of... the air.

   I have added an extra weighing column to the big spreadsheet, called FSPDrawWeight. The intention here was to weigh the spreadsheet variables not with any sense of FSP success, but simply to consider those variables that would influence people to move. For example, the QUALITY variables are weighed much higher here, and the SIZE variables not at all. The Jobs variable got far and away the highest weight (5 times higher than anything else), and this was used as a simple "more is better" variable, not an "intermediate value is better" as on the regular weighing. Then I assumed the state with the lowest draw would get 20,000 FSPers, and predicted the draw in the other states using that assumption and the result of the FSP Draw weighing, and from that the number of voters in the state per FSP activist. Here are the results of my weight choice:

   State	WY	SD	AK	ND	VT	ID	DE	MT	NH	ME
   Predicted FSP Pop (1000s)	24.6	25.0	22.3	20.8	20.0	30.5	20.4	24.2	26.2	20.3
   Voters Per FSPer	8.7	12.7	13.1	14.0	14.6	16.0	16.1	17.0	21.6	31.9

   I don't know what you can do with this, other than to say that in Maine, we'd be in serious trouble. And that Idaho is the state likely to draw the largest FSP population, a result that seems intuitively correct. This exercise was meant more as a fun spreadsheet exercise, than as something one could hang one's hat on. Actually, it is probably a better indicator of the draw we'd have with "friends", than with the members some have taken to calling our "broken glass eaters" (those who would go anywhere to be free). To estimate the draw of the latter you'd want to recalculate after having flattened or almost eliminated the QUALITY variables.

9. Using the full spreadsheet

   Up to this point we have been looking at the big spreadsheet which is useful for making inferences about different subjects, but we were not considering so much the needs of the project as a whole. Now we turn to the regular spreadsheet, available here, to consider the project itself.

   Here are the weights that I came up with, along with Jason's, which are the default in the sheet:

   Variable Paul's Jason's Voters 12 18.1 Finance 6 8.5 Population 6 2.0 Area 2 2.0 Coast 1 4.6 Border 1 1.0 Dependence 9 13.5 FedLand 2 5.1 Spending 7 3.9 Taxes 7 1.6 Prez 2 0.7 Gun Control 3 1.8 Homeschooling 3 1.1 Natives 1 1.5 UrbanAreas 4 1.6 UrbanClus 0 0.4

   Variable Paul's Jason's NEA 1 1.9 Ideology 5 2.1 GovEmp 1 2.1 EFI 4 1.2 LandPlanning 2 1.0 SBSI 4 0.9 CPS 2 1.0 Smoking 1 1.2 SeatBelts 1 1.2 Marijuana 3 2.0 Livability 1 1.4 Crime 1 2.9 Income 1 1.0 Jobs 4 6.5 PrivLand 2 4.2 JanTemp 1 2.0

   First, a comment on spreadsheet differences. In the standard spreadsheet, unlike the big one, variables NEA and GovEmp are a percentage of the total population, rather than a straight number. I think I know why Jason did it this way; they are thus not "dependent" on the total population (i.e., they are not connected to population). But there is still a problem with this. If we had two states "A" and "B" with the same percentage of NEA members, but state "A" has twice the population of state "B", then state "A" will have twice the number of NEA members as will "B". Yet it will be ranked the same in this spreadsheet. This is not a desirable situation; and the same situation exists for GovEmp. NEA members and government employees will be our primary opposition as activists.

   I believe the answer in the standard spreadsheet, as it currently stands, is to weigh these two variables rather low, and increase the weight of the population variables (because you will understand that larger populations will naturally give rise to larger numbers of NEA members and government employees, an undesirable outcome).

   There is another difference in the Jobs variable. In the standard spreadsheet it is a simple "more is better" variable, while in the big spreadsheet I put 60,000 as the optimal number (3 times the number of FSPers, not all of whom will need jobs as some will be spouses). My reasoning was that if the jobs get much higher you have the potential for a lot of them to be filled by economic refugees who might be statists; actually I'm thinking even 60,000 was perhaps too high for an optimal number of projected jobs.

   I have done a linear regression on the projected jobs vs. population, and it turns out (not surprisingly) that the more people you have in a state, the more job openings there will be in the future; so that, in effect, jobs and population are connected. The correlation is quite high. However in the standard spreadsheet Jobs is a simple "more is better" variable and Population/Voters are "less is better" variables. Some large state advocates have advised taking population variables (Population and Voters) to a weight of zero while weighing Jobs highly. This has the somewhat absurd effect, since Jobs and population are so closely connected, of penalizing Wyoming for having a small population!

   The bottom line here is, leave at least some weight in the population variables (Population and Voters) and don't weigh Jobs too high. If you want to take Jobs higher, you must (to avoid a bogus result) do the same with the population variables.

   My weighing generates the following results for the top 5 states:

   WY	AK	NH	DE	ID
   695	602	563	542	538

   Just to experiment, I used my preferred weights but zeroed out the population variables:

   NH	WY	ID	AK	DE
   536	515	494	453	416

   Again, this weighing makes no sense because it penalizes the states for having a small population. Even so it's interesting to see Wyoming is only barely bumped out of 1st place.

   The result Jason got with the default weighs he has loaded in the spreadsheet is:

   WY	DE	AK	ID	VT
   640	573	567	552	530

   Finally, getting back to the big spreadsheet, this is the top 5 result I get with my preferred weights:

   WY	SD	ND	VT	NH
   741	664	623	612	592

   This is a useful cross-check between the two spreadsheets. The big spreadsheet is not kind to DE (and to a lesser extent, NH) because these two do not do so well with the numerous small variables added to the big spreadsheet. On the other hand, SD does do well on them, and with the added comprehensive economic index there (EFNA).

10. To conclude…

    Spreadsheets are not the be-all or end-all. There are a fair number of factors that are not easily quantifiable, and thus are not found in the spreadsheets. But those factors ought not be the only thing you base your decision on. If you have a favorite state that, with a reasonable selection of weights, does poorly in the spreadsheets, you have a problem. At the very least, there is some justification that needs to be done, to keep this state as a favorite. I would say that we shouldn't rank states highly in the vote if they can't make it at least into the top 3 or 4 slots in the spreadsheets.

    Some people have gotten a lot of mileage out of creating lists of "firsts" for their favorite state. This is interesting, but it unfortunately does not lend itself well to comparison with other states, and of course all the bad factors are left out. Spreadsheets allow you to organize your thinking about what is important and what is not, and to consider most of the quantifiable factors.

    In the examination of such factors as economic freedom, personal freedom and others, Wyoming usually does quite well. With the weights I have chosen for running the entire spreadsheet for overall results (and these are done without regard to which state does better on what), I normally see Wyoming in first place with a commanding lead. I suspect most people will come out with a similar result.

11. Appendix: Variable Names

    AllTeachers	Number of government school teachers
    AutoInsRegs	Lack of mandatory automobile insurance regulations**
    BikeHelmets	10 = No bicycle helmet law; 9 = No law except in Billings; 0 = Helmets required
    CPS	Children removed from home by CPS
    CPSAdoptedOut	Children adopted out of foster care after removal from their families by CPS
    DeathTaxes	One point for not having each of the following: Inheritance Tax, Estate Tax, Generation Skipping Tax, Gift Tax
    Debt	Total state and local debt per capita
    Dependence	Federal expenditure to federal tax ratio
    DRCBusVitRank	Development Report Card ranking for business vitality*
    DRCDevCapRank	Development Report Card ranking for development capacity*
    DRCPerfRank	Development Report Card ranking for performance*
    EdSpendingGSP	Dollars spent per $1000 Gross State Product. A measure of teacher union influence.
    EdSpendingPupil	Per pupil spending in public schools, adjusted for regional costs differences. A measure of teacher union influence.
    EFI	Clemson University comprehensive economic freedom index*
    EFNA	Economic Freedom of North America, an economic freedom index by Frazier Institute*
    GovEmp%	% of population employed by state & local government at all levels
    GovEmp	Number, in thousands, employed by state & local government at all levels
    GunControl	State gun freedom**
    GunOwners1	Percentage of homes owning guns
    GunOwners2	Percentage of suicides that are gun suicides, a measure of firearms ownership
    HealthMandates	Unfunded state mandates on health care providers**
    Homeschooling	According to HSLDA, 10=no notification required; 7=minimal regulation; 3=moderate regulation; 0=high regulation
    HunterOrange	Amount of hunter orange required: 10 = none, 5 = 1 garment, 0 = 2 garments or 400 sq in.
    HuntingRegs	Lack of hunting regulations
    HunterTraining	Hunter training course required
    Ideology	Citizen ideologies in the states
    LandPlanning	Lack of statewide land planning schemes
    LiquorLaws	An index showing regulation of liquor, wine and beer**
    MarijuanaArrests	Arrest rate per 100,000, averaged over the years 95-97. Note, arrest rate may be as much affected by population propensity to smoke as by police enthusiasm.
    MarijuanaLaws	An index showing severity of marijuana possession laws**
    MCHelmets	10 = No MC helmet required; 8 = No MC helmet required for 18 or older; 0 = MC helmet required
    NEAMonopoly	NEA/AFT monopoly bargaining power for all teachers - deduct 5 points. NEA/AFT forced dues for all teachers - deduct 5 points.
    NEATeachers	Number of government school teachers in NEA
    NTU	Percentage of time congress persons voted in agreement with National Taxpayers Union, averaged over several years*
    PeoplePerCop	Ratio of the number of citizens to each LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) in the state
    Prez	Vote for conservative & libertarian presidential candidates in 2000
    PublicHealthCare	Support for publicly-funded health care - tax expenditures
    Revenue	Total state & local revenue per capita
    RightToWork	10=Right to work state (no forced union membership or dues), 0=not a Right to work state
    RLCFreedomEc	10-year index of congresspersons for economic freedom by Republican Liberty Caucus
    RLCFreedomPers	10-year index of congresspersons for personal freedom by Republican Liberty Caucus
    SBSI	Small Business Survival Index, grades states on a collection of factors for entrepreneurial friendliness*
    SeatBelts	10 = Seatbelt not required; 5 = Seatbelt required, fine <= $10; etc.
    SmokingRegs	Lack of smoking regulations.**
    Spending	State and local government spending as a percentage of Gross State Product
    Taxes	Total state and local taxes as a percentage of income - note, does not include "user fees"
    UnionMembers%	Percentage of union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state, (union members only)
    UnionMembers	Number of union members, in thousands
    UnionRep%	Percentage of union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state, including all persons represented by collective bargaining contracts

    * These variables are "comprehensive indices", meaning they are a collection of numerous related factors to give a more reliable overall picture, compiled professionally.

    ** These variables are "comprehensive indices", or at least indices containing more than one related factor. They give a more reliable overall picture. They are compiled by FSP researchers.

Best for Liberty? An Analysis of Three Leading States

Best for Liberty?  An Analysis of Three Leading States

by Robert Hawes

With the Free State Project (FSP) closing in on the 5,000-member mark, the time for the state vote is close at hand. After rigorous research and debate, a few states have slowly migrated their way to the top of our list of candidates, and it is time that we took a good, hard look at these states to see which might make the best candidate for a future free state: Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wyoming (in no particular order).

Many feel that all three of these states possess various virtues that rank them as the most liberty-friendly states in the country, but the question remains: which is best for liberty along the lines of what the FSP has in mind?

A few thoughts for your consideration

1. Population

In terms of total population (from the 2000 Census):

Wyoming	493,782
New Hampshire	1,235,786
Idaho	1,293,953

In his essay What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish? Jason Sorens revealed that the FSP's target participation level of 20,000 activists (as well as the slate of candidate states) was chosen based on the example of Quebec's Parti Quebecois, which achieved a parliamentary majority in 1976 as follows:

"At the time, the PQ had a paid membership of roughly 100,000, while the population of Quebec at that time was 6.2 million. In other words, having a paid member for every 62 citizens of the province gave the PQ a parliamentary majority. Applying the same ratio to the FSP's membership goal, we get 1.2 million population for a state in which 20,000 party members could win majorities at the state level. The following states have less than 1.2 million population: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island (Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Maine are close)."

If you are trying to influence and reform government in a given region, it only makes sense that your chances for doing so improve if the number of those who support you is as large as possible in proportion to the total population of that region. That is the logic of the FSP's plan: a higher number of activists concentrated in a lower population region. Population was thus the first criteria by which candidate states were selected.

That said, those that qualify based on their populations are not necessarily equally workable. Those states that are further beneath that cut-off level are logically better candidates (as long as there are not significant intervening factors) due to the fact that they allow for progressively higher saturation levels of activists with regard to the total and voting populations of a state.

Here is a ratio comparing the above three states (considering 1 FSP activist, out of 20,000 total, for every state resident):

Wyoming	1 to 24.5
New Hampshire	1 to 61.8
Idaho	1 to 64.7

Rounding up, New Hampshire maxes out at the upper acceptable limit of the activist-to-resident ratio (1 to 62), and Idaho clearly exceeds it. Wyoming, on the other hand, is far below the threshold and thus represents more than twice the saturation levels that the FSP could have in either New Hampshire or Idaho.

But now let's say that the FSP does not attract 20,000 activists. Instead, it only attracts 15,000. How do the numbers look then?

Wyoming	1 to 33.0
New Hampshire	1 to 82.4
Idaho	1 to 86.3

New Hampshire and Idaho are now far above the upper acceptable limit of the activist-to-resident ratio, while Wyoming is still far beneath it. In fact, Wyoming could drop to less than 8,000 activists and still equal the activist-to-resident ratio in New Hampshire and Idaho. This means that at full-strength, half-strength, or even less, Wyoming allows the FSP activists to saturate the state's population more heavily than either Idaho or New Hampshire, which grow dangerously out of reach as the number of activists is reduced. This is a serious consideration for us. If we choose a state that will take a full 20,000 hard-working participants, and we get any fewer than that, or if they are not as activist as we need them to be, there is a great likelihood that we could fail in our attempt to create a free state due to our effective activists simply being vastly outnumbered.

Also, if we vote for a higher population state at 5,000, and then do not get all 20,000, we could end up with a split in the FSP's ranks. According to the FSP's FAQ, the assumption is that the FSP will disband if it fails to reach 20,000 within five years of its start-up date (September, 2001). If we have, say, only 12,000 in the FSP by 2006, and 3,000 have already moved, the remaining 9,000 will have to decide whether to join the others in a place where we would likely not be able to create a free state, give up and go their separate ways, or fall back to another state where 9,000 would have more of a realistic chance at attaining the goal. Choosing a smaller state eliminates this issue as the need to fall back in the event that we fail to reach 20,000 would be less likely to occur (particularly in Wyoming – there is no smaller state than this one).

2. Voting-Age Population

Voting-age population numbers reflect the number of state residents that we will be actively working with (or against) since they are the ones who are eligible to vote and participate in the political process alongside us. The more of them that there are, the more potential they have to either help us or hinder us.

In terms of voting-age population (from the 2000 Census):

Wyoming	364.909
Idaho	924,923
New Hampshire	926,224

Idaho and New Hampshire are virtually the same here, at nearly one million voting-age inhabitants each. However, notice again that Wyoming presents far less of an obstacle.

20,000 FSPer's would represent:

Wyoming	5.5% of voters
Idaho	2.2% of voters
New Hampshire	2.2% of voters

Once again, we see that our saturation is much higher in Wyoming where we would represent more than twice the total percentage of voting-age residents as in either Idaho or New Hampshire. At 15,000 activists FSPer's would represent:

Wyoming	4.1% of voters
Idaho	1.6% of voters
New Hampshire	1.6% of voters

So if the FSP is only able to attract 15,000 or so activists to its chosen state, we see that this would give us nearly three times the saturation among voting-age residents in Wyoming as in either Idaho or New Hampshire. Which figure are the politicians likely to take more seriously? Which figure is likely to make more of a difference in a close election? The answer here may very well be tied to our degree of influence and success in implementing our agenda.

3. Urbanization – Largest MSA's

These are the largest metropolitan areas (MSA's – Metropolitan Statistical Areas) that are fully within each candidate state (some may overlap with other states, but these numbers do not incorporate the overlapping portion):

Wyoming	81,607	Cheyenne
Idaho	432,345	Boise City and Nampa
New Hampshire	739,699	Boston-Worcester-Nashua

Why list only the largest MSA's? Because it shows what is likely to be the single most difficult area to access, influence, and reform. Conducting campaigns in more heavily populated areas is generally much more difficult because they tend to be havens of statist thought, government dependency, and entrenched opposition. Welfare recipients and those who are more dependent upon other forms of government assistance (such as public education and housing) are more heavily concentrated in these areas. These folks are the least likely to listen to our political reform message due to the fact that the removal of such programs and services (as we would likely target) would impact them first and foremost.

Densely populated areas are also home to big business interests, which are often directly tied to political offices via campaign contributions and union activism. Our intent to introduce greater competition in the market place, and to remove preferences, would likely cut into the profit margins of such big business entities, earning us their wrath as well as that of their political partners. Political party machines are also generally more entrenched in such areas due to the statist-driven infrastructure that they have put into place and now maintain for a willing constituency.

The media is also a crucial element to larger population areas, and one that we must not underestimate. Most of us realize that the media in this country is overwhelmingly statist-oriented, particularly those media outlets owned and operated by such industry giants as Gannett. Their message is very clearly a Leftist one, and their power to do harm to budding movements such as ours is enormous. They can focus both local and national attention on us, and while this may not necessarily phase us, consider what impact it might have upon the residents of our chosen state should they find themselves being ridiculed before the nation because of something that we are driving. Embarrassment and a desire to avoid controversy could create a backlash against us.

So, for those reasons, I decided to go with the sheer size of the largest MSA's we'd be dealing with. As such, they represent places where campaigns might be cheaper and less time-consuming, but they also represent ascending levels of difficulty with regard to the other factors that I mentioned (which could negate any advantages).

Which of these areas would presumably be easier for 15,000 or 20,000 activists to influence?

4. Political History and Trends

This element reflects the degree to which a state has historically supported lesser-statist or non-statist candidates (over a lengthy period of time). In places where there is a more established history of support for liberty-friendly candidates, we will find an electorate more willing to listen to our message, and perhaps sooner than elsewhere.

Changing a state to be what we would like it to be, will be an uphill battle in many ways, not the least of which is going to be persuading the electorate to deviate from the current statist mentality that pervades this country. But the further an electorate is from our ideological foundation, the longer it will take us to educate them, hence the longer it will likely take for them to support our reform efforts. We will have a large group of activists working together, but we cannot do this by ourselves! We will have to convince a relatively large portion of the present electorate to support us. How tough we make that on ourselves, and thus how long it takes, is up to us.

With this idea, I present two measurements for your consideration:

1. "High Votes for Conservative and Libertarian Presidential Candidates" (from the FSP's State Data Page). This is a ranking of how often our candidates states have supported more liberty-oriented candidates.

   Wyoming	No. 1 of 10
   Idaho	No. 2 of 10
   New Hampshire	No. 7 of 10

2. Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of Existing State Populations by "Tennyson". In this analysis, Tennyson compares how the states voted in the 2000 presidential election and ranks them by what percentages they voted in favor of "Big Government" candidates and "Small Government" candidates.

   Wyoming	71.5% for "Small Gov't" candidates	60,908 to 152,851 votes with 59.7% voter turn-out
   Idaho	70.1% for "Small Gov't" candidates	144,869 to 349,601 votes with 53.7% voter turn-out
   New Hampshire	51% for "Big Gov't" candidates	288,504 to 279,211 votes with 62.3% voter turn-out

The above two measurements show Wyoming and Idaho with a commanding lead over New Hampshire. Note once again the size of voter turn-outs in these states and judge yourself where the FSP's few thousand would have their largest impact on the state vote.
5. Expense of Elections

When the FSPer's first start out, we're going to be low on both cash and experience. We could always team up with the local GOP or libertarians, as has been suggested, and this could have some advantages in saving us time, effort, and expense. However, at the same time, any assistance they render us will basically equate to a level of dependency that we will have on them. They could assist us … at a price. A price that could slow our agenda or end up compromising it completely depending upon the circumstances.

To succeed, we may have to join up with the local GOP (LP, Constitution Party, or what-have-you) but we should also have an environment where we can run our own candidates or at least support worthy candidates outside of main parties, if necessary. Even if we do work within, say the GOP, there will still be: primaries and run-offs; mailings; get-out-the-vote drives; television, radio and newspaper ads to purchase (among a host of other things), and all of this costs money. Our chances to successfully access the system in our candidate states will thus be largely dependent upon how much it costs to get a chance at access.

The three states we are examining rank as follows (from "Low Campaign Expenditures" ("Fin" variable) on the FSP's State Data Page):

Wyoming	No. 3 out of 10
Idaho	No. 5 out of 10
New Hampshire	No. 10 out of 10

6. % Native Population = to FSP Acceptance?

The attitude of our new state's current inhabitants toward new-comers may realistically impact our effectiveness there. Thus, the FSP may be more acceptable to the residents of states in which a higher percentage of persons are not native to that state. For instance, Maine seems to have quite a reputation of being suspicious of those who are "from away." This is not really surprising when you consider that, as of 1990, 70.6% of Maine's population was native-born.

The three states we are examining rank as follows in terms of what percentage of their population is actually native (from a forum thread and thanks to Joe Swyers for compiling):

Wyoming	42.5%	(43.4% in 1990)	No. 2 out of 10
New Hampshire	43.3%	(45.8% in 1990)	No. 3 out of 10
Idaho	47.2%	(52.1% in 1990)	No. 4 out of 10

7. Term limits

Term limits can assist by preventing opposition forces from using the power of incumbency and name-recognition in order to permanently entrench themselves in the legislature. In other words, term limits open up the field to greater competition from those who might not otherwise be able to compete with powerful, well-financed, political elite. This could be a powerful tool for us to gain access to the system in whatever state we choose.

Of these three states, only Wyoming has term limits (which go into effect in 2004).

A voter initiative approved term limits in Idaho; however, the state legislature repealed the measure. Idaho's governor vetoed the repeal, and the legislature then voted to override his veto (50-20 in the House, 26-8 in the Senate). A new effort is currently underway to secure term limits in Idaho.

New Hampshire does not, and has not had, term limits.

8. Initiatives and Referendums

Initiatives allow state voters to bypass the legislature and governor and propose a law or constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot. Referendums allow voters to vote on a law passed by the legislature in order to keep it from taking effect. Both of these measures can be used to defeat partisan political forces that might otherwise prove unassailable by means of the normal legislative process, and could thus prove invaluable for our purposes.

• Idaho – has both the initiative and referendum, and requires:

  "All petitions for initiative and referendum must contain signatures of registered voters equal to 6% (40,772 signatures) of the qualified electors at the November 5, 2002 general election before being considered for final filing." [Source]

• Wyoming – has both the initiative and referendum, and requires:

  "28,204 (signatures) – 15% of the total votes cast in the 2002 election" [Source]

  Idaho and Wyoming also require that those signing the initiative proposal reside in a specified number of counties. Idaho's process is somewhat simpler although it requires more signatures due to its larger population. (*Note … In Wyoming, the FSP's projected 20,000 would nearly muster enough signatures just by themselves to put an initiative item on the ballot. In Idaho, it would take a little over twice our own number).

• New Hampshire – does not have either the initiative or referendum

9. Unions and Right-to-work Laws

In states without right-to-work laws, you could be required to join a union and pay dues in order to hold a job. Unions are infamous for their political activism, and you could very well find your dues going to support political causes you do not agree with. States with powerful, forced-membership unions would present a difficult obstacle for us, and in many cases, we would be partially financing our own opposition.

Wyoming and Idaho both have right-to-work laws. New Hampshire is not a right-to-work state; however, right-to-work legislation has been introduced there.

One particularly powerful union organization is the teacher's union. They have considerable political clout because of their proximity to "the children," and could give us a real battle when it comes to education reform issues.

Of the three states that we are considering here …

• Wyoming – does not allow for either teacher monopoly bargaining or forced dues (the only one of our ten candidate states that meets this description – putting unions at their least powerful).

• Idaho – allows for teacher monopoly bargaining, but not for forced dues.

• New Hampshire – allows both teacher monopoly bargaining and forced dues.

Some Concluding Thoughts on These Three States

This report could be much longer and more involved; however, I believe that it adequately addresses some of the most important issues in our consideration of which state the FSP should select.

The main thrust of the FSP is an attempt on the part of, we hope, 20,000 activists to transform one state of the Union into a bastion of liberty. Candidate states have been narrowed down based on two criteria to date: 1) population and 2) liberty-orientation.

As explained previously, the FSP's 20,000 activists are targeted at states of no more than 1.2 million inhabitants, based on the Quebec example. This is in order to achieve the maximum possible saturation of FSP activists in relation to the native population of that state. The higher the saturation of FSPer's, the better our chances for success. Two states (Rhode Island and Hawaii) were also eliminated; not due to their populations, but because they are infamous statist strongholds. So population is not even the deciding element by itself. Population and liberty-orientation must both prove to be reasonably favorable.

Of all of our candidate states, and particularly among what appear to be the top three most-considered states, Wyoming stands out strongly due to the fact that it is one of the most liberty-friendly states in the country, and allows us the maximum possible saturation of FSP activists among the general inhabitants due to its low population. Even among the lower population states, Wyoming still maintains a commanding lead.

Here are some other things to consider about these states …

• New Hampshire

New Hampshire boasts some impressive personal liberty provisions and incentives. For instance, seatbelt and helmet usage are not required there, nor is auto liability insurance. New Hampshire ranks 2nd in the FSP's "gun freedom" measurement, and is 2nd in expected job outlook (behind Idaho). New Hampshire has no personal income tax or state sales tax (ranking 2nd of all ten states for overall low taxes), and has elected a number of libertarians to lower offices. (The one libertarian serving in New Hampshire's legislature recently switched to the GOP).

New Hampshire is undoubtedly the freest state in New England; however, it also has some issues that detract from it as being the best state for liberty, as per the FSP's designs.

New Hampshire does not tax goods and services or wages. However, it does have four types of income taxes. New Hampshire taxes dividends, interest, general business revenue, and has a unique tax called the "business enterprise tax." New Hampshire's comparatively high property taxes are also tied to funding for public education, a fact that will make them difficult to reduce as it will bring us into direct conflict with the teacher's unions, which are at their most powerful in this state since New Hampshire allows for both monopoly bargaining and forced dues. This may make both education reform and property tax reductions an almost insurmountable problem in New Hampshire. The short distances between cities in New England, and the region's overall proximity to major statist enclaves such as New York City, Boston, and Burlington also make it likely that Leftist media elements could more easily draw national scrutiny on us, and Leftist sympathizers could easily bus in supporters for rallies and demonstrations. The NAACP is one example of a special interest group that has mastered this tactic. The unions have as well, and such groups are capable of exerting enormous pressure on local businesses and politicians. In New Hampshire, their propaganda masters and other reinforcements would be within easy hailing distance.

New Hampshire has nearly one million voting-age inhabitants and lacks term limits and the initiative and referendum, meaning that state-wide level reforms must be routed through the legislature; and ballot issues must be backed and approved by a larger number of voters. This puts the FSP's potential 20,000 or so activists at a decided disadvantage. Without the initiative and referendum, we will be unable to work around the legislature, meaning that our attempts at reform will lie at the mercy of the major political parties that control state politics. And without term limits, those major political parties will be able to continue fronting the same candidates year after year, making it difficult for us to have a chance at introducing better candidates into the system and have them actually prove viable. Incumbent politicians would be able to use their name-recognition and experience to draw greater funding and essentially eclipse competitors in a number of ways as a result. Thus, New Hampshire's comparatively large population will weigh against us most heavily here.

New Hampshire has a 400-member legislature and very small districts (the smallest having 3,089 people), which can be an advantage in that it may offer more of a chance for more people to participate in the system. However, New Hampshire's districts are growing with its population. Its largest House district is currently at 21,559 inhabitants, which is larger than in any other state, with the exception of Idaho. Legislation has recently been introduced to reduce district size even further, but its passage is not yet certain. Also, on the other side of the legislative coin, New Hampshire has the largest Senate districts of any of our candidate states: 53,000 people, which is far ahead of the closest runners-up, Delaware and Idaho, both of which have Senate districts of more than 38,000.

New Hampshire is the fastest growing state in New England, a factor that is causing problems with regard to providing for education and transportation funding in addition to expanding its electoral districts. These issues are likely to begin driving up taxes in the state and renewing the call for a state income or sales tax. New Hampshire defeated a state income tax attempt in 2002, but the opposition is not likely to vanish into the woodwork. Witness the example of Tennessee where vehement tax protests virtually besieged the state capital on several occasions. However, the legislature still adopted tax increases and more may be on the way. In a related example, Oregon recently defeated an income tax increase measure. The Portland School district is now pushing to implement an income tax on Portland residents strictly to fund education within the Portland MSA. And the powers-that-be in Oregon politics are already working on another sales tax proposal – just a few weeks after their previous attempt was defeated!

New Hampshire is especially vulnerable to new tax proposals due to the fact that the state is nursing a rising budget deficit. It was at $19.7 million in 2002 and is projected to rise to $54.6 million in 2003. This will put additional pressure on the legislature to increase existing taxes or implement new ones. In politics, there is rarely any sort of true "defeat." There is only "next time."

Finance also comes to bear in terms of activism when you consider that New Hampshire ranks at the bottom of our ten states when it comes to expense of elections. The 2002 tax battle in New Hampshire was a costly one. It is evident from this that there are strong political forces at work here, and that they are locked in a determined contest for control of the state's political system. We are at great risk of being out-spent by the opposition in this state.

Also, consider the fact that New Hampshire's neighboring states have little reputation for being liberty-friendly despite the fact that they are FSP candidate states (with the exception of Massachusetts, of course). Vermont might have been dismissed by the FSP for statist tendencies (like Rhode Island) were it not for its "Vermont Carry" provision, which allows anyone to carry a gun without a concealed carry permit. Maine consistently scores at the bottom of our measurements, and Massachusetts is infamous for its statist tendencies.

If the FSP moves into New Hampshire, it will most likely draw freedom-lovers desiring to escape from the oppressive taxes and statist systems in Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts (if not New York as well). This may bolster the FSP's numbers in New Hampshire, but I believe it would also isolate the state. If what freedom-loving element there is in those states leave them for New Hampshire, it seems that they would become even more statist. This could then have the effect of raising a perimeter around New Hampshire, preventing us from being able to expand this movement in the future as the neighboring states would likely be more hostile than ever. It might then be said that New Hampshire could serve as a magnificent contrast to the statist governments of Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, but the fact of the matter is that it already does! And these states are not changing to conform to it. Why should we expect them to do so in the future, particularly if there are fewer liberty-loving people lobbying for change in them?

Some also fear that statists will flee from the increasing cost of living in nearby locations like Boston due to New Hampshire's growing economy and job market. After all, the population pools that employers will have available to draw new hires from in New Hampshire's region of the country are mostly statist strongholds. If such people do move in, they could effectively dilute the FSP's activists. Thus, either way you look at it, New Hampshire is situated very badly in terms of potential allies and enemies.

• Idaho

Personally, I believe that Idaho is the best choice among the three most populous candidate states: Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire.

Idaho is at a disadvantage in that it has the largest population of any of our ten candidate states, the largest House districts, and very large Senate districts; however, as you can see below, it has various advantages that place it above New Hampshire in my analysis.

Idaho:

• Has the strongest predicted job growth of all ten states (New Hampshire is 2nd) and is not located as close to major statist enclaves, thus making it less likely to attract statist immigrants seeking better jobs

• Has the lowest number of voting-age inhabitants of our three largest states: 924,923 out of 1,293,653 total inhabitants (as compared to 926,224 out of 1,235,786 total in New Hampshire and 973,685 out of 1,274,923 total in Maine)

• Has the 2nd lowest degree of federal dependence in the West (after Wyoming)

• Has an international border and even port access for those who believe this is a positive (but small and remote enough not to worry others too badly)

• Has the lowest campaign expenditures of the three largest states (ranks 5th overall as compared to 10th for New Hampshire)

• Has the 2nd highest number of votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (after Wyoming, and as compared to 7th for New Hampshire)

• Ties with Wyoming for 3rd place in terms of gun freedom

• Ranks 4th (under New Hampshire) in terms of low number of native residents – 47.2%

• Ties with New Hampshire for 1st in low number of NEA/AFT members

• 1st in economic freedom (as compared to 4th for New Hampshire)

• Has more privately and locally held land than New Hampshire (in fact, Idaho's private and locally held land totals an area greater in size than the entire State of New Hampshire)

• Has some of the most varied terrain and mild temperatures of any of our candidate states – certainly milder than New England (more suitable to a larger number of folks)

• Has the initiative and referendum (for working around a stubborn legislature)

• Has the term limits issue in hot contention as a possible threat to the GOP-dominated legislature (may be a good issue for us)

• Is a right-to-work state

• Empowers teacher's unions less than New Hampshire (allows monopoly bargaining but not forced dues)

• Borders lower population, liberty-friendly states where we could easily expand the movement in the future and build a regional solidarity

• Has a budget deficit but has reduced it substantially from the last fiscal year: $221 million in 2002 to $75 million (projected) in 2003

Idaho is likely to be acceptable to a larger number of both westerners and easterners, and together with its mild climate and vibrant economy, is the most likely (in my opinion) to attract 20,000 or more activists. Adding to this, and in addition to the initiative and referendum, Idaho also gives us a native population that, despite its large size, votes heavily in favor of small government candidates (refer back to the above criteria for details). I also believe that the low population, liberty-friendly neighboring states are a significant factor here. Idaho gives us a more realistic chance of building regional solidarity to oppose the statist power of the growing "mega states" in Washington DC (CA, IL, NY, etc. …)

If we need to pick a higher population state, it seems that Idaho gives us more advantages for dealing with that population, attracting 20,000 activists, and expanding this movement in the future.

• Wyoming
• Has the lowest total and voting-age populations in the country (again, giving us maximum saturation of activists among the inhabitants)

• Has the initiative and referendum

• Has term limits (which go into effect in 2004)

• Has no individual income tax or business tax at all

• Has some of the lowest property taxes in the country

• 2nd lowest gas tax of our candidate states (0.13 – only Alaska is lower with 0.8)

• Has the lowest federal dependence of all the western states (4th out of all 10 states)

• Has the 3rd lowest number of government employees (behind North Dakota and Vermont)

• Has the 3rd smallest House districts of all ten states (no more than 8,230 people), and the 2nd lowest Senate districts (no more than 16,500 people)

• Has the 3rd lowest campaign expenditures of all ten states (after North Dakota and Vermont) – Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 10th

• Ranks 1st in high votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (Idaho is 2nd, New Hampshire is 7th)

• Leads all western states (except for Alaska) in highest per capita income (ranks 5th of all 10 states) New Hampshire is 2nd, Idaho is 6th of all ten

• Ranks 1st for lack of state-wide land-use planning (Idaho is 6th, New Hampshire is 7th)

• Ties for 3rd with Idaho for favorable gun laws (New Hampshire is 2nd)

• Ranks 1st for gun ownership rates and gun shows (88% est. gun-ownership rate – Idaho had an est. 76% and New Hampshire had an estimated 36%) (Wyoming had 50 gun shows in 2000 – Idaho had 49, New Hampshire had 17)

• 2nd lowest number of unionized laborers – 20,000 (North Dakota is 1st with 19,000 – Idaho has 42,000 to New Hampshire's 60,000)

• Ranks 1st for low numbers of unionized teachers (5,713 to Idaho's 11,132 and New Hampshire's 11,834)

• Ranks 3rd for "low level of city urbanization" on the state data page (1st of all western states) – New Hampshire is 8th, Idaho is 9th

• Ranks 2nd under "livability" on the state data page (New Hampshire is 1st, Idaho is 8th)

• Ranks 2nd for lowest number of native-born inhabitants (42.5%) – New Hampshire is 3rd, Idaho is 4th

• Ranks 2nd under "economic freedom" (Idaho is 1st, New Hampshire is 4th)

• Ranks 4th in "more private and locally owned land" (Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 9th)

• Has no state budget deficit – has a $1.8 billion surplus (very unlikely there will be any call for new taxes here, in fact, Wyoming is considering lowering its 4% sales tax)

• Has a large royalty income from mining activities (the source of its $1.8 billion surplus), which helps fund education and various aspects of government, giving the FSP an opportunity to lower or eliminate other types of taxes (it also shows fiscal prudence on the part of Wyoming – this fund has existed and grown steadily since 1974)

• Borders several other FSP candidate states where this movement could spread (Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota)

• Wyoming's population is concentrated in several pockets throughout the state (such as Cheyenne and Casper), but the population in these areas is not as high as that in other larger areas like Boise City or Anchorage, or the Wilmington and Boston MSA's. This means that more of our activists will be voting and otherwise supporting one another in the same elections, enhancing their group strength without spreading it too thin or presenting it with too large and powerful of a target. Our combined numbers would thus be more manifest on the town, county, and state levels here.

Wyoming is also closer to large population centers than any other western candidate state. Denver is within 90 minutes of Cheyenne, the state capitol, and Boulder is even closer. Fort Collins, Colorado is only 45 minutes from Cheyenne. Salt Lake City is one and a half hours from Wyoming (Park City, Utah, part of the Salt Lake MSA, is only one hour and 10 minutes from Wyoming). So Wyoming, while it does not have many inhabitants or "big city" amenities itself, is closer to both than any other western candidate. The Denver area is also growing and expanding toward Wyoming, and we will be close enough to reap the benefits of that economic progress; however, we will also have the state line between ourselves and Colorado – keeping that state's more statist politics at bay. And despite this growth trend, the immigration rate into Wyoming is yet low enough that it is not affecting Wyoming politics and infrastructure to any great degree.

Additionally, we have a chance to help Wyoming diversify its economy, something that it needs and wants to do. By moving in people and jobs from all over the country, we can help diversify the state economy and raise the standard of living to a degree that would be impossible for us to duplicate in Idaho or New Hampshire where the economies are more robust and the people more affluent. Not only would this be a very positive thing for the people of Wyoming, but it would also be an opportunity for us to diminish our "outsider" image and prove that we are coming to contribute to Wyoming, not just "using" it.

In terms of more "livability" elements, Wyoming's climate and terrain are greatly varied (it has the third warmest winters of our ten candidate states), a fact that would make it easier for FSPer's to find someplace to live that is more in line with their expectations and desires. States like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and North Dakota are well-known for their harsh winter conditions. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine are definitely located well within the snow-belt as well (for those of you who don't enjoy shoveling the stuff). Parts of Wyoming can have harsh wintertime conditions as well, but there are also other areas with milder conditions, a choice that we won't have to the same degree with small states like VT and NH. And again, there are also urban areas and open countryside, making it possible for a larger number of FSPer's to find more acceptable and desirable places to live than states where most of the population is concentrated in one certain part of the state.

Wyoming – the Best State for Liberty?

All of these elements working together, and combined with the fact that Wyoming allows the FSP a chance at the maximum possible saturation of activists to residents, places Wyoming head-and-shoulders above the other nine candidate states. Nowhere else do we have this number of benefits and liberty-friendly elements along with so low of a burden for each FSP activist. Nowhere else could we have so great an impact so very quickly – simply by being there and voting. And nowhere else will our natural opposition be as weak (the NEA, and other unions and special interests – both in sheer numbers and political machinery). Wyoming is also located farther away from the statist media and political elements (including special interest groups) that could damage us so badly if we were located closer to statist enclaves like Boston and New York.

Again, consider the notion that the FSP could fall short of 20,000 participants; or even if it gets all 20,000 that they might not be as activist as necessary for one of the larger states. Even 20,000 libertarians who confined their activism to voting could make an impact of some sort in any of these states, or gather together and hold influence over a few towns or counties, but could they achieve a free state? And when you consider that 8,000 to 10,000 in Wyoming could accomplish as much if not more than 20,000 in Idaho or New Hampshire, consider what 20,000 in Wyoming could do!

As has been pointed out in our discussions already, a few libertarians forming a township or gaining a majority influence in a county might be able to enact a number of reforms; however, the extent of what they could accomplish could be severely curtailed by the state government. States simply have much more political power than town and county governments. They also have representation in the United States Congress. Thus, if it is at all possible, we should try our best to go somewhere that would allow us a greater voice in the state government.

Wyoming presents us with a very real chance at achieving a majority representation in a state legislature and thus a very real chance at "liberty in our lifetime." Overall, it makes us less reliant upon the various unknown elements that we face in other states such as: "will we have enough?" or "will they really move?" or "will they do the work that's necessary to succeed?" Any of these elements could be fatal to our efforts in the higher population states. In Wyoming, they hurt us the least because our numbers count for so much more even before anything else is considered.

---

Thank you for considering this perspective on what may be the most important decision that we ever make.

In particular, my thanks go out to Joe Swyers, Keith Carlsen, and Paul Bonneau for the time and effort they have expended in gathering and posting much of this data.

See the thread on the FSP forum for a compilation of various threads relating to the state decision.