Laboratories of Progress—Or Hotbeds of Reaction?

In one of the most famous opinions written by Louis Brandeis, the celebrated liberal Supreme Court justice described it as “one of the happy incidents” of America’s federalist system that a “single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory” for “novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

As a progressive reformer, Brandeis had in mind states like Wisconsin, which had become a model for reform during the Progressive Era under the leadership of populist governor and senator Robert La Follete. The Badger State was the first to adopt an income tax and one of the first to establish direct primaries, a workers’ compensation program, minimum wage laws and a host of other social and political reforms that would eventually be adopted nationwide. It was a classic “laboratory of democracy” in the Brandeisian sense.

Of course, states have just as often been laboratories against democracy over the course of American history. For every example of a state like Wisconsin leading the way in democratic and progressive reforms, there is a counterexample showing how states dominated by local elites have fought to preserve systems built on racial authoritarianism and economic exploitation. As political scientist Jacob Grumbach has pointed out, state governments have historically led the way in voter suppression and other civil rights abuses, from Jim Crow to the criminalization of abortion to mass incarceration. Time and again, this has forced the federal government to step in to protect the rights of African Americans and other oppressed groups.

Given this history, it is not surprising that the right-wing takeover of state governments has been one of the major stories in American politics over the past two decades. In just a few election cycles between 2010 and 2016, Democrats lost a staggering 958 seats in the state legislatures and 12 governorships, leaving Republicans with 24 state “trifectas” — i.e. control of both legislative chambers and the executive branch — and Democrats with just six. While Democrats have slowly rebuilt a presence in state governments in the years since, they remain considerably behind. Republicans control majorities in 56 state chambers and have trifectas in 23 states, along with 19 supermajorities big enough to override a governor’s veto. By contrast, Democrats control 40 chambers and have 17 trifectas and nine supermajorities.

These lopsided numbers help explain how state legislatures have turned into laboratories of right-wing extremism in the 21st century. With trifectas and supermajorities across the country, Republicans have faced little resistance to reactionary agendas that have grown increasingly bold and expansive as gridlock in Washington and various court decisions have shifted critical policymaking responsibilities back to the states.

In the three years that Joe Biden has been in the White House, Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed bills criminalizing abortion, banning books, clamping down on LGBTQ rights and stifling the right to protest. They have also been at the forefront of a highly coordinated and national effort to restrict voting rights and rig elections in their favor. In 2021 alone, 19 states passed laws that made it harder to vote. Fueled by the former president’s ongoing false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, hundreds of more bills have been introduced in the years since. In addition to writing more restrictive rules, Republican legislators have also voted to expand their power over the entire election process, which could have profound consequences for the upcoming election.

The Biden years have thus underscored the critical importance of state governments as Republican legislators and governors have made national headlines flaunting their power and radicalism. If there has been one salutary effect of the extremism on display in the state capitals, it has been to rouse Democrats and progressives from their decades-long neglect of state and local politics. It was this neglect, after all, that helped enable the Republican takeover during the Obama years, when Republican-associated groups spent nearly twice as much on state elections as Democrats.

Liberal donors and Democratic organizations have a long history of ignoring the states and focusing almost all of their attention and resources on national elections. In recent years, this has begun to change, thanks in no small part to the Republican extremism on display in the statehouses. Since 2016, a number of new liberal organizations have emerged devoted exclusively to rebuilding a Democratic power in the states. These groups have raised tens of millions of dollars and provided grassroots support to hundreds of candidates running for state office. In addition to these outside groups, the Democratic Party has built up its own infrastructure for state elections. In 2022, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spent a record $50 million on state elections.

These investments have paid off. In 2022, Democrats became the first party of an incumbent president not to lose a single state chamber in the midterms since 1934. Democrats not only defended their majorities, but actually picked up four new trifectas, raising their national total to 17. To their credit, Democrats have made the most of these new trifectas, wielding their own power in state capitals to pass a slew of progressive reforms.

In Michigan, where Democrats won a trifecta for the first time since 1984, the new majority quickly reinstated a prevailing wage law, repealed abortion restrictions from 1931, passed effective gun control measures, bolstered voting rights and codified  LGBTQ protections into the state’s civil rights laws. They also became the first state since 1965 to repeal a “right to work” law on the books. By the end of 2023, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had signed 321 bills into law. (By comparison, President Biden signed 27 bills last year).

Across the Great Lakes, in Minnesota, Democrats arguably had an even more transformative legislative year with their new trifecta. Like their Michigan counterparts, Minnesota Democrats codified abortion rights, expanded voting rights and strengthened gun controls. They also passed “one of the most pro-worker packages of legislation” in decades, which includes the highest child tax credit in the country, paid family and medical leave, and state bans on noncompete clauses and “captive audience” meetings.

Heading into the 2024 election, Democrats are hoping to continue their progress in rebuilding their presence in state capitals. The DLCC has announced a budget target of at least $60 million  for 2024, which would amount to four times its operating budget in 2016. In a memo earlier this year, DLCC president Heather Williams described 2024 as “the most consequential year for state politics and state legislatures in history.” The DLCC has laid out a strategy to protect current democratic majorities in states like Michigan and Minnesota and to flip or weaken Republican majorities in states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

These states will play a pivotal role in deciding the next president of the United States as well, and a central part of the Democratic strategy will be to link Republican candidates to their polarizing presidential candidate. The divisiveness of Donald Trump could help boost the Democratic Party’s down-ballot prospects, especially in competitive districts where Trump-endorsed candidates have fared poorly. But state Democrats will also have to contend with the unpopularity of their own candidate at the top of the ballot. Despite reassurances from top Democrats, Biden is currently losing the election in most polls and has the lowest favorability rating of a fourth-year incumbent since Jimmy Carter. The recent protest votes in the Democratic primaries, where about 10% voted “uncommitted” in states like Michigan and Minnesota, revealed just how toxic the Biden brand has become with some voters as he continues to support Israel’s criminal campaign in Gaza.

Given this reality, the most prudent approach may be for down-ballot candidates to talk less about the presidential election and more about state-level accomplishments and the immediate dangers posed by far-right Republicans (such as abortion bans). As it stands, down-ballot candidates are less likely to ride Biden’s coattails than the other way around. Indeed, the best-case scenario for Biden and Democrats may lie in what has been called a “reverse coattail effect,” wherein down-ballot candidates end up boosting the candidates at the top. This phenomenon was on display in 2020, when Democrats received a greater share of the statewide vote within precincts where every state legislative seat was contested by both parties (including deep red districts). In a state like Georgia, where Biden won by just 12,000 votes, this may have been a decisive factor and could be again.

The awesome powers that state legislatures wield over elections was thrown into sharp relief after the 2020 election. While the president failed in his attempts to pressure state lawmakers to overturn the election, next time the country may not be so lucky. According to one analysis, there are currently more than 200 election deniers sitting in state legislatures across seven battleground states that were at the center of the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. But election denialism is just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly all state-level Republicans, whether they openly embrace the “Big Lie” or not, are united in the project to restrict voting rights and make elections less democratic. As Jacob Grumbach notes, state governments have been the “primary actors who administer democratic backsliding in practice and on the ground.” These efforts predate the rise of Trump and will continue after he’s gone.

Three years after Biden and Trump first faced off, the United States is barreling towards another explosive contest. This year’s election will be a spectacle like no other, monopolizing the American public’s attention and further eroding faith in the political system. But the future of American democracy may well end up being decided in the sleepy halls of our state capitals.