Over the past decade, Utah legislators won nine of every 10 times that they sought re-election.
And the few times that they lost, it usually was to someone from their own party, according to a new Deseret News analysis of election results.
Such stunning job security — and party security — is among reasons that a petition drive has emerged to seek creation of an independent commission to suggest district boundaries to the Legislature. It would help prevent legislators from choosing their own voters, and from creating boundaries that eliminate meaningful competition.
Of course, several other reasons could also contribute to the incredible winning streak of incumbents, from the fundraising advantages they have to better name recognition or even simply doing a good job.
But Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, says, "We are reaching a stage where we no longer choose our representatives. They choose us, and that is why they never lose," especially as computers allow drawing tailor-made districts on almost a house-by-house basis to ensure friendly majorities.
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, at a press conference endorsing the petition drive for an independent boundary-drawing commission, said that drive "is about allowing the voters to decide who their political representatives should be rather than the political representatives deciding who is going to vote for them."
So how safe are incumbents?
Deseret News research found that in elections between 2000 and 2008, incumbent legislators ran for re-election 379 times. They were defeated only 36 times, a success rate of 90.5 percent.
In fact, twice as many lawmakers voluntarily chose to retire from office in that time (72 of them) than those who were defeated.
And of the 36 who were defeated, 28 were beaten by challengers from their own party, showing district boundaries were generally safe for their party even if an incumbent was vulnerable to defeat.
"Those statistics don't surprise me at all," said Glenn Wright, field director for Fair Boundaries, a citizen group that's attempting to gather 95,000 registered voters' signatures to get on the 2010 ballot a new law that would set up an independent boundaries commission.
Wright said the newspaper's findings — the 90.5 percent re-election rate for legislators — "is the reason the incumbents are so afraid of our initiative."
Should the group get the needed signatures, and should the measure be approved by voters, in redistricting after the 2010 Census, the new panel would study and recommend boundaries to the Legislature. Under the Utah Constitution, the Legislature must make the final redistricting decisions.
The new Deseret News research shows how much redrawing boundaries after a Census — to tweak them after a decade of moving around by supporters — can help incumbents.
In 2000, just before the last time that boundaries were redrawn, 87.1 percent of House incumbents who sought re-election won. In the Senate, 77.8 percent of senators who sought re-election won.
In 2002, after the Legislature redrew boundaries with majority Republicans looking to protect their own incumbents, 93.8 percent of the House members who ran again won, a 6.7 percentage point increase. And 86.7 percent of the senators who ran again won, an 8.9 percentage point increase.
When the Legislature next redraws boundaries in 2011 after the 2010 Census, it will have to account for some population shifts, such as more shifts from the east side to the west side in Salt Lake County.
"There will be new constituents for legislators, and even a few new districts that don't contain an incumbent. That will make for more competitive legislative elections," if boundaries are fairly drawn, Wright said.
Jowers said that "gerrymandering," or redrawing boundaries in contorted ways to protect incumbents, has been around since the nation's founding. "But the difference is the incredible sophistication that technology has brought to the process."
Because of it, "Voting, to many people, becomes primarily a symbolic exercise in most races because the winners were predetermined by the state officials and party operatives who drew the lines."
But tailor-drawn districts are not the only reason that incumbents usually win.
"There are so many advantages (to incumbents) that make it difficult for challengers to defeat them," said Kelly Patterson, a Brigham Young University political science professor, ticking off things like easier fundraising, better name recognition, learned knowledge of arcane issues.
That easier fundraising — mostly from donations by special interests — is among reasons that a separate citizens group, Utahns for Ethical Government, is waging a second petition drive to create an independent ethics commission to limit influence from those special interests.
Deseret News studies in the past have shown that more than 80 percent of lawmakers' campaign cash comes from special interests, which often have business before the Legislature.
Utah is one of only 10 states that don't limit campaign contributions; a candidate can take as much cash from anyone as they can raise. And Utah is one of only a few states that allow corporations to give directly to candidates. Many states ban corporate giving, as does Congress.
"Interest groups are less likely to give to challengers, believing, as your numbers show, that the challengers can't win," Patterson said.
Jowers agrees, saying that incumbents "can raise funds much easier because they have taken or are going to take actions that impact people's and other organizations' (including corporations') interests."
Jowers adds, "It is difficult to find good candidates to challenge sitting officeholders because they typically have an incredible head start due to their notoriety, money, and tailor-made district, that challengers have almost no chance of winning."
e-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; lee@desnews.com