Chamber members had the opportunity earlier today to hear from two guys in the election trenches during our monthly Policy Issue Conference Call. I can’t share all they had to say, but did want to recap some of the numbers and insights they offered.

Jeff Brantley is director of political affairs for the Chamber’s Indiana Business for Responsive Government, focused on electing pro-economy, pro-jobs candidates to the Indiana General Assembly. Michael Davis previously was in that position before moving to Washington earlier this year for a role with BIPAC, focused on congressional elections and working with states on their political programs.

Among the offerings:

• Michael cited "enthusiasm gap" polling that reflects the mood of the electorate. Typically a strong advantage for Democrats, it’s currently in the +2 to +10 range for Republicans. In 1994, when a major GOP swing took place in the mid-term election, the "gap"  was +4 for Democrats.
• There are between 120 and 125 competitive U.S. House races (at least twice the norm). The striking difference is in which party currently controls those competitive seats — 105 for Democrats and 18 for Republicans.
• At a minimum, there will be 15 new U.S. senators, 43 new reps and a continuing trend in governors who were not in power as recently as two years ago.
• At the state level, Jeff notes there are "very competitive races in places we’ve not seen competitive races before." He also points out the absence of the traditional human services and education issues; the attention is focused on the economy and jobs, jobs, jobs.
• The "change" mantra in Indiana is strongest in the southern portion of the state. There are very competitive Statehouse races along the Ohio River and in other southern areas. Change, of course, can mean a backlash against incumbents — no matter the party.
• Turnout, as always, will be crucial. But turnout takes on a whole new meaning with the growing number of voters who cast their ballots well ahead of Election Day.

The bottom line: November 2 and its results will be most interesting and important.

It’s endorsement season — and the Indiana Chamber Congressional Action Committee (ICCAC, the Indiana Chamber’s non-partisan federal political action program) today endorsed Dan Coats for the U.S. Senate seat in this year’s election.

Coats says he has talked to hundreds of struggling Hoosier business owners who are fed up with higher taxes, more regulations and the ambiguity of what is yet to come.

"They are asking for checks and balances against the one-party control in Washington and this cloud of uncertainty," says Coats, who previously served in the Senate from 1990-1998. "It’s all about creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Those are the keys to our campaign."

The former senator added that every effort should be made to repeal the health care reform measure that, he notes, imposes 19 new taxes. If that proves not possible, "sensible corrections" need to be pursued.

Coats, running against current 8th District Congressman Brad Ellsworth, had sharp words for Congress and its decision to head back to the campaign trail without addressing the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at year’s end.

"That was totally irresponsible." The uncertainty that is stopping company investments and job expansions is "now extended two more months. It has frozen businesses in place because they don’t know what their tax situation will be."

Chamber President Kevin Brinegar said that the volunteer business community leaders of the ICCAC want representatives in Washington who "focus on economic growth and job creation, not growing government, and Dan Coats clearly understands this."

A story yesterday about a number of Indiana colleges and universities doing away with telephone landlines for students (I may never forget that phone box that was shared with those next door back in the Ball State days) makes total sense in today’s world. Along the same lines, trudging to the polls on Election Day is seemingly still the "right thing" for only a shrinking number of eligible voters.

Why do I say that?

• Early voting is becoming a dominating force, only restrained in part by the state or local laws in place. In Indiana, 24% of ballots in 2008 (more than double previous totals) were cast ahead of time. Currently, in a contentious Florida primary, more than 500,000 (30%) early votes are expected.
• Other states are being much more innovative, with various methods to save voters the trip to the local fire station, school, church or other facility on November 2 this time around. Unlimited absentee periods, alternative early locations and even mail-in votes are part of the mix.
• Technology is our friend. Amazing things can and do happen every day. Voting someday will certainly take place electronically. Let’s not be afraid to move in that direction. Doing things the way we have always done them — with the reasoning being we have always done them that way — simply isn’t good enough.

And if we’re going to have some voting take place on Election Day — which we certainly should — why not incorporate vote centers? These are centralized locations that make it possible for more people to participate and can save counties and states tremendous amounts of money. Pilot projects were successful. The time for widespread implementation is now.

Our BizVoice magazine, available at this time next week, will include some early election coverage, including comments on early voting and the impact on the candidates and campaigns.

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year (in Citizens United vs. FEC) that company (and employee) voices were being unfairly silenced by the campaign finance rules that were in place. Democrats in Congress didn’t like what they heard so they attempted to make their way around the decision by coming up with the DISCLOSE Act. For those that care, the acronym (who has the job of coming up with these things) stands for Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.

Fortunately, the effort fell short of the 60 Senate votes needed to proceed. But bad ideas (in this case one of the worst ones to come down the pike in a long time, and that’s saying something in a city filled with questionable policy proposals) don’t simply go away. Indiana Chamber members communicated their displeasure the first time around.

CongressDaily reports the latest:

The DISCLOSE Act will head back to the floor for a vote when the Senate returns next month, according to spokespeople for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the bill’s lead sponsor.

The measure would implement strict disclosure laws on campaign ads, require corporate leaders to appear in ads much like candidates and severely restrict foreign-owned companies and those that do business with the government. 

Senate Dems and their reform-advocate allies are targeting Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., Olympia Snowe, R-Maine and Susan Collins, R-Maine, all of whom voted against cloture last month. The 3 GOPers said the bill was rushed in an attempt to influence the ’10 midterms on Dems’ behalf.

Now, though, reform advocates believe they have removed that most significant objection all 3 GOPers had. If the measure is passed in late Sept. or early Oct., it would not go into effect until after the midterms.

Senate leaders have told their House counterparts that they will bring the bill up again, and that they may let GOPers block it one more time in order to score political points. But after the bill fails, reform groups and senators who back the DISCLOSE Act will try to convince potential GOP allies to join them in passing the bill so it might be implemented after the midterms.

Still, Snowe, Collins and Brown will face pressure from their leader even after it becomes clear the bill wouldn’t impact the midterms. Senate Minority Leader McConnell has been a vocal opponent of the DISCLOSE Act, labeling it a ploy to benefit Dems. McConnell has been successful in keeping his conference together on most controversial votes, making the bill’s prospects uncertain.

Dems also have to deal with Sens. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif., and Frank Lautenberg , D-N.J., both of whom are opposed to a carve-out that exempts the NRA from certain disclosure provisions. Holman said there is an understanding that the 2 Dems would vote for cloture, getting Dems over the 60 votes required to move the bill to final passage, but then Lautenberg and Feinstein could vote against the final package. Lautenberg and Feinstein both voted for cloture when the bill first came up on July 27.

An innovative vote center option has been unable to expand beyond the pilot stage in Indiana. In Hawaii, meanwhile, various methods of casting absentee ballots are in play with an effort to institute all-mail elections. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has the story:

As of last year, Hawaii was among 29 states allowing some form of no-excuse absentee voting and is now among five states that allow citizens to become permanent absentee voters, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Hawaii’s Legislature approved the system in 2008 over Gov. Linda Lingle’s veto, but a bill to require statewide all-mail election failed in last year’s session.

The governor expressed concerns that the permanent absentee ballot could result in fraud because it lacks a means for verifying that the intended voter was the person who mailed in the vote. That should no longer be an issue since the 2009 federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires states to be equipped with reliable ballot tracking technology.

The Honolulu administration has sent out permanent absentee voting applications to the state’s 250,000 registered voters and other counties also will reach out to their voters. Applicants must provide their Social Security number and sign the form. Election workers are to compare the signature accompanying the mailed-in vote to the one on file from the application.

Oregon initiated all-mail elections in 2000 and appears to have avoided serious fraud by leveraging signature verification and ballot tracking, while increasing turnout by 7 percent in previous years to 67.6 percent in 2008.

Voting by mail follows a trend in that direction in Hawaii.

Thirty-eight percent of votes were cast by absent ballot in the 2008 general election, compared with only 19.7 percent in the 2000 election.

In Oregon, the cost of elections has gone down from $1.81 to $1.05 per voter since the move to all-mail balloting. However, the Los Angeles city clerk warned last year that an all-mail election would entail the prohibitive cost of hiring 480 new employees to process ballots. Hawaii is closing only about one-fourth of polling places, so cost-saving in this year’s election seems doubtful.

This year’s primary and general elections in Hawaii should provide an indication of whether voter turnout is enhanced by permanent absentee ballots and the cost would be affordable if the state were to move to all-mail voting. The Legislature should visit the issue in its next session.

This week’s Indiana Supreme Court ruling upholding the requirement that voters show a picture ID to vote really wasn’t much of a surprise, considering case law.  However, it does represent an important reform to stop years of egregious frauds committed by slimy characters from both parties.

I once followed a suspicious voter between three polling sites where she cast ballots, before I was able to get an official in place to challenge her at a fourth site. At the time, all she had to do was give a name, no ID, and sign in the poll book. The unusual thing was catching someone in the act, not the act itself.

Electronic voting systems have come to most counties and the age-old game of tweaking paper ballots and machines has largely passed into the ashbin of history. However, absentee balloting continues to be a gaping hole in Indiana elections.

A voter casting an “absentee ballot” simply files a basic application indicating they will not be able to physically go to a polling site on Election Day. A ballot is then mailed to their residence to be filled out and returned by mail.

Convenient? Yes. Secure and fraud-free? No. 

Slimy political agents hang around mailboxes to collect applications and ballots they filed for eligible or not eligible (dead, moved, non-citizen, etc.). Absentee ballots are cast from voters at homes that don’t exist. Small rental homes or single apartments can be found from which dozens of absentee votes are cast. The list goes on.

Prosecutions in this state for voter fraud are up, but you’ll find the cases are almost always about absentee ballot abuses.

The Democratic Blue Dog Coalition has been a rather enigmatic lot in recent years. And its members get grief from liberals for being too conservative and/or too corporate, yet Indiana’s Blue Dog Congressmen (Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill, Joe Donnelly, etc.) are constantly blasted in the conservative blogosphere for being — pardon me for this — "lapdogs" for the Obama administration.

But now, it seems Speaker Pelosi may be taking genuine heat from this caucus. Roll Call explains:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has made passing a jobs agenda her top priority this year, but an anti-deficit insurgency led by Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), the administrative co-chairwoman of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, has forced Pelosi to scale back her ambitions.

With concerns about deficits rising and rank-and-file Democrats fearing losses in November, Blue Dog clout has soared in recent weeks, and liberal priorities from health care benefits for the jobless to tens of billions of dollars in aid to the states have ended up on the chopping block. In the tumult, Herseth Sandlin has emerged to head a new generation of Blue Dogs as old-guard members such as Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) are heading for the exits or lowering their profiles.

The pivotal moment came shortly before the Memorial Day recess, with Pelosi planning to push through a nearly $200 billion package of tax cut extensions, doctor payments, jobless benefits and state aid. But Herseth Sandlin warned the measure didn’t have the votes and would have to be trimmed significantly.

“While we’ve been invited to share our concerns and leadership has listened, not everyone is hearing us,” she told reporters at the time.

Within a day, Democratic leaders were forced to carve their bill nearly in half in a mad scramble for votes.

And this week, the leadership’s plans for a war spending bill had to be cut back in the face of demands from Blue Dogs that add-on aid for states and money for the Pell Grant program be fully offset. The bill will include just $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs — less than half the amount sought by leadership and President Barack Obama…

Blue Dogs won another victory in this year’s budget battles by extracting a $7 billion cut from Obama’s budget request — a level that will likely force cuts to some domestic spending programs treasured by liberals.

So what do you think? Genuine uproar within the party that could alter its platform, or just contrived friction that will ultimately mean nothing?

UPDATE: Also discovered this article, contemplating a possible Blue Dog coup to overtake Pelosi’s speakership. Doesn’t seem likely, but an interesting thought.