State legislative incumbent turnover in 2014

2014 Competitiveness Overview

Primary competition (state comparison)

Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers •
Primary competitiveness
Major party challengers (state comparison)
Candidates with no challenges at all in 2014
Open seats (state comparisons)
Impact of term limits on # of open seats
Long-serving senators • Long-serving reps
Chart Comparing 2014 Results
Chart Comparing 2014 Results • Comparisons Between Years
Competitiveness Index • Absolute Index
2014 State Legislative Elections
State legislative incumbent turnover in 2014
Competitiveness Studies from Other Years
2007 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013

## Contents

* 1 Review of incumbent turnover
* 2 Open seats
* 3 Primary opposition incumbents & defeated incumbents
* 4 Overall turnover
* 5 States compared by overall turnover
* 6 States compared by year: 2012 vs. 2014
* 7 See also
* 8 Footnotes

Incumbent turnover, the combination of legislators retiring or losing in primaries, shifted back down to levels seen in elections four years prior. Nevertheless, 131 major party incumbents lost a primary. Thirty-six percent of those were Democratic seats; 64 percent were Republican.

State legislative elections in 2014 did not see as many defeated incumbents as 2012, primarily due to redistricting. A larger percentage of incumbents chose to seek re-election than in recent years.

Republican incumbents were challenged in the primary elections at a higher rate, suggesting that different segments were continuing to compete over the direction of the party. In an interview with Ballotpedia, Tim Storey, an election expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures, stated that "both parties go through phases where there is a conflict over the identity of the party. Democrats went through a similar phase during the years when President Bill Clinton was in office, and now it's the Republican's turn." Storey said that the change tends to be specific to each state and requires a certain tension in the party. He pointed towards states such as Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas as ones with this Republican tension.

Although Republican incumbents received more primary challenges, and there may have been tension within the party, the difference between the percentage of Democrats winning primaries compared to Republicans was fairly insignificant -- just under 3 percent -- and was on par with recent years.

The incumbent turnover rates in 2014 fell in between results from 2010 and 2012. There was a spike in 2012 turnover on account of a large number of incumbents from both parties, but particularly Republicans, being challenged and defeated in primaries. Redistricting played a large role in 2012, moving multiple incumbents into the same district to face off. Additionally, many districts had been redrawn in such a way that left some incumbents in unfamiliar territory and vulnerable to primary challenge. The degree of turnover seen in 2014 was more along the lines of what was seen in 2010.

Incumbent turnover compared by year

| 2010  | 2012  | 2014
Retired Democrats | 579 | 517 | 466
Defeated Democrats | 53 | 70 | 46
Total D turnover | 632 | 587 | 512
Retired Republicans | 533 | 591 | 545
Defeated Republicans | 56 | 124 | 85
Total R turnover | 589 | 715 | 630

For the full set of data, please visit our Google spreadsheet here.

## Review of incumbent turnover[edit]

Using official candidate lists, Ballotpedia staff analyzed each chamber for trends in incumbent turnover. Our findings were based on all 46 filing deadlines and primaries. The final primary elections were held on September 9, 2014.

We focused on the following four circumstances for major party incumbents:

* Incumbents who retired, leaving open seats;
* Districts where incumbents faced primary opposition;
* Incumbents who were defeated by primary challengers; and
* Overall turnover and the number of open seats heading into the general election.

## Open seats[edit]

In 2014, 1,012 partisan state legislators declined to seek re-election. Some chose to leave office to seek higher office, personal reasons and, in some cases, without choice due to term limits. In any case, the open seats leave an opportunity for new candidates with aspirations towards their state legislature. Around 90 percent of incumbents who run for their current seat win re-election.

The number of incumbents who did not seek re-election included:

467 Democrats
545 Republicans

## Primary opposition incumbents & defeated incumbents[edit]

In the 46 states that held a primary election in 2014, 419 Democratic incumbents and 590 Republican incumbents faced primary opposition.

Overall there was little difference between Democrats and Republicans in the percentage of incumbents defeated by an opponent:

46 Democrats were defeated, with 89.3 percent advancing past the primary.
85 Republicans were defeated, while the remaining 85.6 percent advanced.

## Overall turnover[edit]

Republicans controlled 51.6 percent of the seats in the 87 chambers with elections, while Democrats held 47.5 percent. Those figures are based only on districts up for election in 2014. Vacancies are attributed towards the party that previously held the seat.

Republicans felt a slightly greater impact of incumbent turnover in 2014:

* Just under 54 percent of retired incumbents were Republican and about 46 percent were Democrats.
* Republicans accounted for 64 percent of all incumbents defeated in primaries. Democrats represented 36 percent.
* In total, 55 percent of all partisan incumbent turnover was attributed towards Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats.

The following table details what percentage of partisan incumbents retired, incumbents defeated in primary and overall turnover is attributed to each party.

Incumbent turnover in 2014 state legislative elections

| Incumbents retired  | Defeated in primary  | Turnover
| Democrats  | Republicans  | Democrats  | Republicans  | Democrats  | Republicans
State Senate | 44.56% | 55.44% | 33.33% | 66.67% | 43.32% | 56.68%
State House | 46.52% | 53.48% | 36.79% | 63.21% | 45.41% | 54.59%
Totals | 46.15% | 53.85% | 36.15% | 63.85% | 45.01% | 54.99%

## States compared by overall turnover[edit]

The following table details, by state, overall incumbent turnover.

"Seats up" represents the number of state senate and state house seats up in the state. The share of those seats as a part of all 6,057 seats up in 2014 is listed under "Total seats up in 2014." "Incs retired" represents the number of incumbents who did not seek re-election. The number of incumbents facing primary opposition, and how many of them were defeated, is listed under "Incs facing primary" and "Incs defeated." "% Incs facing primary" details, of the incumbents who faced a primary challenger, what percentage of the incumbents advanced past the primary. The percentage of seats that will be open heading into the general elections is represented under "Percent of seats up."

States compared by overall turnover

State  | Seats up  | Total seats up in 2014  | Incs retired  | Incs defeated  | Incs facing primary  | % Incs winning primary  | Total  | Percent of seats up
Total | 6,057 | 100%[1] | 1,011 | 131 | 1,008 | 87.10% | 1,158 | 19.12%
Texas | 165 | 2.72% | 15 | 11 | 39 | 71.79% | 26 | 15.76%
Illinois | 137 | 2.26% | 14 | 3 | 14 | 78.57% | 17 | 12.41%
Indiana | 125 | 2.06% | 8 | 3 | 11 | 72.73% | 11 | 8.80%
North Carolina | 170 | 2.81% | 14 | 4 | 28 | 85.71% | 18 | 10.59%
Ohio | 116 | 1.92% | 27 | 3 | 23 | 86.96% | 29 | 25.00%
Nebraska | 25 | 0.41% | 17 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 17 | 68.00%
West Virginia | 117 | 1.93% | 11 | 7 | 33 | 78.79% | 18 | 15.38%
Arkansas | 118 | 1.95% | 31 | 4 | 8 | 50.0% | 35 | 29.66%
Idaho | 105 | 1.73% | 11 | 6 | 31 | 80.65% | 17 | 16.19%
Georgia | 236 | 3.90% | 17 | 5 | 48 | 89.58% | 22 | 9.32%
Kentucky | 119 | 1.96% | 11 | 2 | 14 | 85.71% | 13 | 10.92%
Oregon | 76 | 1.25% | 16 | 1 | 5 | 80.0% | 17 | 22.37%
Pennsylvania | 228 | 3.76% | 26 | 5 | 42 | 88.10% | 31 | 13.60%
Alabama | 140 | 2.31% | 20 | 8 | 40 | 82.50% | 27 | 19.29%
California | 100 | 1.65% | 33 | 0 | 43 | 100% | 33 | 33.00%
Iowa | 125 | 2.06% | 15 | 0 | 8 | 100% | 15 | 12.00%
Montana | 125 | 2.06% | 47 | 2 | 18 | 88.89% | 49 | 39.20%
New Mexico | 70 | 1.16% | 11 | 2 | 7 | 71.43% | 13 | 18.57%
South Dakota | 105 | 1.73% | 33 | 0 | 17 | 100% | 33 | 31.43%
Maine | 186 | 3.07% | 59 | 1 | 3 | 66.67% | 60 | 32.26%
Nevada | 53 | 0.88% | 10 | 0 | 13 | 100% | 10 | 18.87%
North Dakota | 72 | 1.19% | 13 | 0 | 4 | 100% | 13 | 18.06%
South Carolina | 124 | 2.05% | 9 | 2 | 20 | 90.0% | 11 | 8.87%
Colorado | 83 | 1.37% | 23 | 0 | 2 | 100% | 23 | 27.71%
Maryland | 188 | 3.10% | 50 | 12 | 92 | 86.96% | 62 | 32.98%
Oklahoma | 126 | 2.08% | 31 | 0 | 13 | 100% | 31 | 24.60%
Utah | 89 | 1.47% | 12 | 3 | 19 | 84.21% | 15 | 16.85%
Kansas | 125 | 2.06% | 13 | 3 | 21 | 85.71% | 16 | 12.80%
Michigan | 148 | 2.44% | 51 | 1 | 24 | 95.83% | 52 | 35.14%
Missouri | 180 | 2.97% | 29 | 1 | 20 | 95.0% | 30 | 16.67%
Washington | 123 | 2.03% | 13 | 1 | 17 | 94.12% | 14 | 11.38%
Tennessee | 116 | 1.92% | 12 | 8 | 26 | 69.23% | 20 | 17.24%
Hawaii | 64 | 1.06% | 5 | 3 | 20 | 85.0% | 8 | 12.5%
Connecticut | 187 | 3.09% | 24 | 2 | 9 | 77.8% | 27 | 13.90%
Minnesota | 134 | 2.21% | 15 | 0 | 5 | 100% | 15 | 11.19%
Wisconsin | 116 | 1.92% | 26 | 0 | 11 | 100% | 26 | 22.41%
Alaska | 54 | 0.89% | 8 | 2 | 4 | 50.0% | 10 | 18.52%
Wyoming | 75 | 1.24% | 11 | 4 | 27 | 85.19% | 15 | 20.0%
Arizona | 90 | 1.49% | 27 | 3 | 24 | 87.50% | 30 | 33.33%
Florida | 140 | 2.31% | 17 | 1 | 22 | 95.45% | 18 | 12.86%
Vermont | 180 | 2.97% | 24 | 1 | 7 | 85.71% | 25 | 13.89%
Delaware | 51 | 0.84% | 2 | 2 | 9 | 77.78% | 4 | 7.84%
Massachusetts | 200 | 3.30% | 21 | 1 | 15 | 77.78% | 22 | 11.0%
New Hampshire | 424 | 7.00% | 119 | 11 | 98 | 88.78% | 130 | 30.66%
Rhode Island | 113 | 1.87% | 7 | 2 | 24 | 91.67% | 9 | 7.96%
New York | 213 | 3.52% | 21 | 1 | 30 | 96.67% | 22 | 10.33%

## States compared by year: 2012 vs. 2014[edit]

The following chart details turnover, retired incumbents in addition to incumbents defeated in primary elections, and the percentage of seats up that the turnover represents. The same sets of data for 2012 and 2014 are presented alongside each other for context.

The states that saw the largest change between 2012 and 2014 were:

1. Nebraska - 34.62 percent in 2012 to 68 percent in 2014 (33.4%)
2. Kansas - 34.55 percent in 2012 to 12.80 percent in 2014 (21.8%)
3. Idaho - 36.19 percent in 2012 to 16.19 percent in 2014 (20.0%)
4. Florida - 31.88 percent in 2012 to 12.86 percent in 2014 (19.02%)
5. North Carolina - 27.65 percent in 2012 to 10.59 percent in 2014 (17.1%)

Total incumbents out before the general election

| 2014 | 2012
State  | Total  | Percent of seats up  | Total  | Percent of seats up
Total | 1,158 | 19.12% | 1,314 | 21.85%
Texas | 26 | 15.76% | 19 | 12.67%
Illinois | 17 | 12.41% | 37 | 20.90%
Indiana | 11 | 8.80% | 21 | 16.80%
North Carolina | 18 | 10.59% | 47 | 27.65%
Ohio | 29 | 25.00% | 16 | 13.68%
Nebraska | 17 | 68.00% | 9 | 34.62%
West Virginia | 18 | 15.38% | 21 | 17.95%
Arkansas | 35 | 29.66% | 49 | 36.30%
Idaho | 17 | 16.19% | 38 | 36.19%
Georgia | 22 | 9.32% | 20 | 8.47%
Kentucky | 13 | 10.92% | 12 | 10.08%
Oregon | 17 | 22.37% | 13 | 17.57%
Pennsylvania | 31 | 13.60% | 25 | 10.96%
Alabama | 27 | 19.29% | No election | \--
California | 33 | 33.00% | 44 | 44.00%
Iowa | 15 | 12.00% | 27 | 21.43%
Montana | 49 | 39.20% | 46 | 36.51%
New Mexico | 13 | 18.57% | 26 | 23.21%
South Dakota | 33 | 31.43% | 37 | 35.24%
Maine | 53 | 28.49% | 65 | 34.95%
Nevada | 10 | 18.87% | 18 | 33.33%
North Dakota | 13 | 18.06% | 18 | 24.00%
South Carolina | 11 | 8.87% | 27 | 15.88%
Colorado | 23 | 27.71% | 34 | 40.00%
Maryland | 62 | 32.98% | No election | \--
Oklahoma | 31 | 24.60% | 21 | 16.80%
Utah | 15 | 16.85% | 21 | 23.08%
Kansas | 16 | 12.80% | 57 | 34.55%
Michigan | 52 | 35.14% | 23 | 20.91%
Missouri | 30 | 16.67% | 60 | 33.33%
Washington | 14 | 11.38% | 27 | 21.77%
Tennessee | 20 | 17.24% | 28 | 24.35%
Hawaii | 8 | 12.50% | 10 | 13.16%
Connecticut | 26 | 13.90% | 26 | 13.90%
Minnesota | 15 | 11.19% | 45 | 22.39%
Wisconsin | 26 | 22.41% | 21 | 18.26%
Alaska | 10 | 18.52% | 8 | 13.56%
Wyoming | 15 | 20.0% | 18 | 24.00%
Arizona | 30 | 33.33% | 32 | 35.56%
Florida | 18 | 12.86% | 51 | 31.88%
Vermont | 25 | 13.89% | 22 | 12.22%
Delaware | 4 | 7.84% | 12 | 19.35%
Massachusetts | 22 | 11.0% | 10 | 5.00%
New Hampshire | 130 | 30.66% | 117 | 27.59%
Rhode Island | 9 | 7.96% | 16 | 14.16%
New York | 22 | 10.33% | 20 | 9.39%

## See also[edit]

* State legislative elections, 2014
* Impact of term limits on state legislative elections in 2014
* State legislatures compared by extent of electoral competitiveness in 2014

* Open seats in the 2014 state legislative elections
* Incumbents with no primary challenger in the 2014 state legislative elections
* Major party candidates with major party competition in the November 2014 state legislative elections

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ This is the percentage of seats to this date that have held a primary.

v • e

Competitiveness in State Legislative Elections

Background|

A "Competitiveness Index" for capturing competitiveness in state legislative elections • Creating an absolute measure for the "Competitiveness Index" in state legislative elections • Year-by-year comparison of results • Factors Affecting Competitiveness in State Legislative Elections

2023|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Impact of term limits • Open seats • Contested primaries • Incumbents in contested primaries • Major party competition • Incumbents defeated • Primary statistics

2022|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Impact of term limits • Open seats • Contested primaries • Incumbents in contested primaries • Major party competition • Incumbents defeated • Primary statistics

2021|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Major party competition • Open seats • Impact of term limits • Incumbents in contested primaries • Primary competitiveness • Incumbents defeated

2020|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Major party candidates with major party opposition • Open seats • Impact of term limits • Incumbents in contested primaries • Primary competitiveness • Incumbents defeated

2019|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Major party candidates with major party opposition • Open seats • Impact of term limits • Primary competitiveness • Incumbents defeated

2018|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Major party candidates with major party opposition • Open seats • Aftermath of the 2016 presidential election

2017|

Primary competitiveness • Open seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • Incumbents defeated

2016|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • Incumbents defeated

2015|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • States Compared by Competitiveness • Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers • List of candidates with no primary or general election opposition

2014|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • States Compared by Competitiveness • Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers • List of candidates with no primary or general election opposition

2013|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • States Compared by Competitiveness • Incumbents with no primary or general election opposition • Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers • List of candidates with no major party opposition

2012|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • States Compared by Competitiveness • Incumbents with no primary or general election opposition • Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers • List of candidates with no major party opposition • Impact of term limits

2011|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • States Compared by Competitiveness • Incumbents with no primary or general election opposition • Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers • List of candidates with no major party opposition • Impact of term limits

2010|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats •Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition • States Compared by Competitiveness • Incumbents with no primary or general election opposition • Incumbents defeated • Victorious challengers • List of candidates with no major party opposition • Impact of term limits

2009|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition

2007|

Competitiveness Analysis Main Page • Open Seats • Incumbents with no primary challenger • Major party candidates with major party opposition

v • e

State legislatures

Legislatures|

Alabama (H, S) · Alaska (H, S) · Arizona (H, S) · Arkansas (H, S) · California (A, S) · Colorado (H, S) · Connecticut (H, S) · Delaware (H, S) · Florida (H, S) · Georgia (H, S) · Hawaii (H, S) · Idaho (H, S) · Illinois (H, S) · Indiana (H, S) · Iowa (H, S) · Kansas (H, S) · Kentucky (H, S) · Louisiana (H, S) · Maine (H, S) · Maryland (H, S) · Massachusetts (H, S) · Michigan (H, S) · Minnesota (H, S) · Mississippi (H, S) · Missouri (H, S) · Montana (H, S) · Nebraska · Nevada (A, S) · New Hampshire (H, S) · New Jersey (GA, S) · New Mexico (H, S) · New York (A, S) · North Carolina (H, S) · North Dakota (H, S) · Ohio (H, S) · Oklahoma (H, S) · Oregon (H, S) · Pennsylvania (H, S) · Rhode Island (H, S) · South Carolina (H, S) · South Dakota (H, S) · Tennessee (H, S) · Texas (H, S) · Utah (H, S) · Vermont (H, S) · Virginia (H, S) · Washington (H, S) · West Virginia (H, S) · Wisconsin (A, S) · Wyoming (H, S)

* * *

2024|

State legislative elections (2024) • State legislative special elections (2024) • Primary dates and filing requirements • 2024 Session Dates

* * *

2023|

State legislative elections (2023) • State legislative special elections (2023) • Primary dates and filing requirements • 2023 Session Dates

* * *

Historical elections|

2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001 • 2000

* * *

Features of
state legislatures|

How vacancies are filled in state legislatures • States with a full-time legislature • State legislatures with term limits • Comparison of state legislative salaries • When state legislators assume office after a general election • Population represented by state legislators • State constitutional articles governing state legislatures • State legislative sessions • Resign-to-run law • State legislature candidate requirements by state • Official names of state legislatures • State legislative chambers that use multi-member districts • Factors Affecting Competitiveness in State Legislative Elections

* * *

State senates|

Length of terms of state senators • State senators • Partisan composition of state senates • State senators sorted by year first elected

* * *

State houses|

Length of terms of state representatives • State representatives • Partisan composition of state houses • State representatives sorted by year first elected

* * *

Leadership positions|

President of the Senate • President Pro Tempore • Senate Majority Leader • Senate Minority Leader • House Majority Leader • House Minority Leader • State Speaker of the House

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson • Michelle Robinson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jacob Hupp • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald
Research: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial|

Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Galatioto • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Roneka Matheny • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora