2010 State League Election Results
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of the death of conservation and environmental protections are greatly exaggerated. Voters confirmed time and again that environmental values do still matter. Across the country 1134 out of 1619 (70%) state league endorsed candidates won! Five members of the inaugural class of the State Dirty Dozen were defeated, with a 6th victory likely pending recount. Those successes illustrate the power of state leagues., and highlight the pivotal role the state leagues played in many of those races by strategically knocking on doors, airing television and radio ads, making phone calls, and targeting mail pieces. Collectively, state leagues engaged in 20 gubernatorial races, spent a record-breaking $7 million(!) and engaged in over 17 million voter contacts helping to get pro-conservation candidates elected.
However, let’s not sugar-coat it – this year’s elections hurt. Across the country several conservation champions got caught up in the national anti-incumbent wave. Yes, there will be challenges building pro-conservation majorities while dealing with budget shortfalls and complex issues that don’t have easy answers. The good news is that while the ranks of conservation champions are smaller, there is still support for the issues we care about: a strong economy, good jobs, and protecting our children’s future.
In addition to helping get candidates elected, pro-conservation victories on ballot initiatives were garnered in at the state and local level including the resounding defeat Proposition 23, Texas Oil’s attempt to repeal California’s first-in-the-nation clean energy and climate law. Pro-conservation ballot measures also succeeded in Arizona, Oregon, Maine & Washington.
Following is a breakdown of the numbers:
OVERALL STATE LEAGUE RESULTS:
Candidates Endorsed: 1619
Endorsed Candidate Wins: 1134 (70%)
Voters Contacted: 17,475,413
Total Spent: $7,133,325.00
2010 STATE LEAGUE ELECTION RESULTS
|
STATE |
ENDORSEMENTS |
WON |
% WON |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AL |
27 |
15 |
55 |
|
AK |
25 |
18 |
72 |
|
AZ |
43 |
18 |
42 |
|
CA |
95 |
92 |
97 |
|
CO |
28 |
15 |
54 |
|
CT |
34 |
26 |
76 |
|
FL |
11 |
6 |
54 |
|
GA |
32 |
28 |
87 |
|
ID |
31 |
21 |
68 |
|
ME |
97 |
74 |
76 |
|
MD |
128 |
109 |
85 |
|
MA |
59 |
47 |
80 |
|
MI |
31 |
15 |
48 |
|
MN |
34 |
13 |
38 |
|
MO |
38 |
16 |
42 |
|
MT |
65 |
29 |
45 |
|
NE |
9 |
5 |
55 |
|
NV |
39 |
30 |
77 |
|
NH |
8 |
5 |
62 |
|
NM |
21 |
12 |
57 |
|
NY |
98 |
81 |
83 |
|
NC |
65 |
50 |
77 |
|
OH |
41 |
31 |
76 |
|
OR |
92 |
58 |
63 |
|
PA |
19 |
11 |
58 |
|
SC |
38 |
27 |
71 |
|
TN |
49 |
33 |
67 |
|
TX |
89 |
62 |
43 |
|
VT |
128 |
95 |
74 |
|
WA |
74 |
60 |
81 |
|
WI |
71 |
32 |
45 |
|
TOTAL |
1619 |
1134 |
70 |
No
No
Political
Political Director
Agenda
No
False
Intermediate

