With polls starting to close… here are the important races to watch tonight. The next story will be for election results.

Tomorrow, November 6th, is election day in some parts of the country. The most important elections from a national standard are:

[UPDATE] Fourth issue added.

1. School Choice in Utah

The state legislature in Utah enacted universal school choice earlier this year providing a voucher to all future students that is larger the poorer the family. The vouchers range from $500 to $3,000. Each student who takes the voucher will save the district over $3,000 to use on the students who choose to stay in the public system. The universal nature of the program scares teachers unions who have poured multiple millions of out of state money to fight parental choice.

Many commentators understand the revolutionary nature of the reforms. Unfortunately, the grass roots support that lead to high public support in the Spring when the legislature passed the reform has fallen under the mass spending by status quo supporters. It is likely that the school choice program will lose at the ballot box in this conservative state. If somehow a surprise victory occurs, it will be a banner day for education and progress.

2. Governors in MS and KY

In MS, Gov. Barbour (R) is expected to win a strong mandate for a second term in a state still dominated by Democrats in the legislature. Gov. Barbour has been a big part of the Republican trend in local and state races and he recently secured endorsements from several major Democrats including several black leaders. Perhaps Gov. Barbour will use some of his second term to woo religious black voters toward the GOP in MS.

In KY, Gov. Fletcher (R) has been attacked by political opponents on some ethics issues and is behind in polls by about 20 points. It seems likely that Ds will pick up this seat while losing the LA Governorship.

3. State Legislatures

VA: Republicans control the state house 57-40 and there are around 6-10 competitive seats mainly in Northern Virginia. Rs will likely hold control of the House but will lose seats. In the state senate, Rs have a 23-17 lead with 6 competitive races (5R, 1D) mostly in Northern Virginia. If NoVa continues it’s trend toward Ds, they could pick up the Senate and get in range of the House. With a D GOV and 2 D SENs after 2008, Virginia is slipping from Republican control.

MS: Even liberal media sites expect Barbour’s coattails to help Rs in the state houses. Rs control the Senate 27-25 (after two party switchers this term) and Ds control the House 74-48. It is unlikely Rs will take the House, but the chamber may change substantially.

LA: Term limits hit this term and many incumbents cannot run again in both houses. The first round of elections are not a big change from four years ago. Democrats control both chambers in a state that has trended Republican recently. Party label has always been less important in LA than other states. Thus, some new Ds may be better than some older (pay to play) Rs. It seems likely that Rs will make minimal gains this cycle and perhaps more next cycle but Ds will hold both chambers when Gov.-elect Jindal brings his ethics reforms to the legislature.

NJ: The state senate is 22D-18R (and the house 50-30) so anything could happen, but there is not much written about the dynamic of this election. Gerrymandering and the lack of competitive races have led to predictions of low turnout.

[UPDATE] 4. Pittsburgh Mayor

Mayor Ravenstahl (D) is over his head with the inherited position. The city hasn’t had a Republican Mayor since the 1926 election. But Mark DeSantis (R) is showing some surprising strength including several unusual endorsements from the major local papers and a very active Democrats for DeSantis group. This could be a major surprise victory for an up and coming young Republican in a heavily Democratic city. Perhaps a future Giuliani/Riordan type.

I have the power (of elected office).

Just over 2600 votes. No opposition.

Democrats nationwide have been operating on the assumption that taxpayer funding for stem cell research is endlessly popular with the voters (for all the talk of “banning” research on embryonic stem cells, remember that nobody has advanced a serious proposal to make such research illegal; the issue is whether to spend taxpayer money on it despite the substantial moral/ethical objections of a significant number of taxpayers).

Today in New Jersey, that theory was put to the test, and appears to have gone down in defeat before what is usually accounted as a liberal Northeastern electorate:

New Jersey voters on Tuesday rejected borrowing $450 million to pay for stem cell research grants in the state for 10 years.

With 95 percent of the vote counted, 53 percent of voters opposed the spending.

The rejection was a defeat for Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who campaigned heavily for the measure. He argued the money would help find cures for conditions such as spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell anemia and multiple sclerosis while also luring leading scientists and research firms to the state.

But the measure was opposed by anti-abortion activists, conservatives and the Roman Catholic Church because it would pay for research that destroys human embryos and would increase state debt.

“It’s a reinforcement of our values and a rebuke to the governor,” said Steve Lonegan, a conservative Republican who led opposition to the question. “The taxpayers are saying enough is enough.”

New Jersey voters had not defeated a statewide ballot question since 1990.

Senate President Richard J. Codey, a leading stem cell supporter, pinned the defeat on chronic state fiscal problems and mounting state debt.

“The taxpayers of New Jersey are not against stem cell research,” said Codey, D-Essex. “It’s clear. The message we’re getting is put your fiscal house in order and then do these things.”

Presumably, supporters of federal stem cell research believe that the federal government’s fiscal house is already in enviable condition. But voters, if asked to judge, might say otherwise.

That’s what Jonah Goldberg says the Clinton campaign appears to have, having looked at their reaction to the poor reviews Senator Clinton received in the wake of last week’s Democratic Presidential debate. Yuval Levin concurs. I was of the impression that the Clinton campaign would be a bigger league operation given that many of the people staffing the campaign have been around the block at the highest levels of politics and campaigning. They may regain their sea legs yet but for the moment, it would seem that my regard for their political skills was misplaced.

Check out this post. Sullivan links to a story discussing how the Republicans in the House sought to force the Democrats to debate Dennis Kucinich’s resolution calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. As the story makes perfectly clear, the Republicans were doing this to embarrass the Democrats, not because they believed Cheney ought to be impeached. Sullivan, however, seems to think that Liberty is about to rise Lazarus-like from the grave because at last, “Congress is finally tackling the issue of the vice-president’s attack on the constitution.” If Sullivan actually bothered to read the story he linked to, he would find that the Democrats in the House were desperate to table the Kucinich resolution so that they wouldn’t have to consider it and the Republicans were gleeful at the prospect of using it to sidetrack the Democrats and make them look like they were obsessed with Cheney. Hardly “tackling the issue of the vice-president’s attack on the constitution” and more like a smart parliamentary maneuver that caught the Democrats napping procedurally.

And then there is this. Evidently, by protecting pork barrel water projects, Madisonian democracy is being preserved against the ravages of the neocons. I wonder if Sullivan is on autopilot when he blogs or whether he just thinks that none of his readers are energetic enough to do what he ought to have done in the first place and closely peruse the posts and stories he tries to make public.