Aside from the Presidential campaign, races for Senate seats are drawing the next level of national attention. The Constitution established that each state, regardless of size or population, would have two Senators, which is why there are now 100 members of the Senate. The Constitution also mandates that each Senator shall serve for six years and that approximately one-third of the total Senate shall be up for re-election every two years.

Today, Republicans hold 51 of the Senate’s 100 seats, while there are 48 Democratic Senators and one Independent who tends to vote with the Democrats. The stakes are high, with the shift of only one or two seats changing the Senate from its current control by the Republicans to Democratic dominance.

If the Democrats pick up just one seat in November and if they win the White House, the virtual tie would be resolved by the person elected in November as Vice President who would then become the determining vote. If the Democrats pick up two or more seats, they would be guaranteed control of the Senate regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race.

Conversely, if the Republicans do not drop below their current number or even add seats, they would control the Senate for at least the next two years. They would also maintain control if they lost one seat and the Bush-Cheney ticket was victorious, as Vice President Dick Cheney would then vote with Republican Senators to provide them with a 51-50 majority.

There are 34 Senate races this year, with 15 of these currently being held by Republicans and 19 in Democratic hands. This provides some advantage to the Republicans as they have fewer seats to defend.

The Republicans will also have a major financial advantage, not only in the amounts of money that the party and its candidates are able to raise, but in the fact that many of the Republican seats up this year are in “cheaper” states, namely those that are less populated and have smaller and less expensive media markets. For example, this year, Democrats must defend seats in states like New York and California, which are notoriously expensive for campaigns.

While it is always possible for any political race to become more competitive or for incumbents to lose their advantages, for now, 17 incumbent Senators appear reasonably assured of re-election.

On the Republican side the following nine Senators seem to be in relatively good shape as they campaign for re-election: Robert Bennet (Utah); Christopher ‘Kit’ Bond (Missouri); Sam Brownback (Kansas); Jim Bunning (Kentucky); Michael Crapo (Idaho); Charles Grassley (Iowa); Judd Gregg (New Hampshire); John McCain (Arizona); and Richard Shelby (Alabama).

There are 10 Democratic Senators who also are ahead in their bids to be re-elected: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Christopher Dodd (Connecticut); Byron Dorgan (North Dakota); Daniel Inouye (Hawaii); Patrick Leahy (Vermont); Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland): Harry Reid (Nevada); Charles Schumer (New York); and Ron Wyden (Oregon).

Both parties focus the majority of their attention on “seats,” namely those where the incumbent is not running for re-election, and on those seats where polling data shows that these races will be the most competitive.

For varying reasons, eight Senators have decided not to seek re-election; five Democrats and three Republicans. The five Democratic vacancies are all in the South. Specifically, those Democrats not seeking re-election are Senators Bob Graham (Florida); Zell Miller (Georgia); John Breaux (Louisiana), John Edwards (North Carolina) and Ernest Hollings (South Carolina).

Because George W. Bush won all five of these states in his presidential bid in 2000 and these states have tended to become increasingly conservative, Republicans feel they will be wrest all or most of these seats away from the Democrats.

Democrats counter that a combination of good candidates and President Bush’s declining popularity, even in the South, will enable them to hold most of these five seats, although their top strategists admit that holding all five will be difficult.

Three Republican Senators, Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado); Peter Fitzgerald (Illinois) and Don Nickles (Oklahoma) have also decided not to seek re-election, which gives Democrats opportunities to pick up seats currently held by the GOP, although both parties admit that these three races will be very competitive.

Finally, there are five states where incumbents are facing major challenges, with both parties willing to spend enormous amounts of money and great efforts.

The most competitive and highest profile race in the country will be in South Dakota, where former Republican Congressman John Thune is challenging Senator Tom Daschle. This is a state that Bush won easily in 2000 and Republicans would dearly like to knock off the Democrat’s Senate Leader. Both parties will spend more money on this race than any previous race in the state’s history.

In an unprecedented move, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tennessee) went to South Dakota to campaign against the man with whom he works closely on a daily basis. This race will almost certainly go down to the wire and may eventually determine both the fate of the Democratic leader as well as which party will control the Senate.

Republicans also anticipate mounting strong challenges to at least three other Democratic Senators, Barbara Boxer (California), Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) and Patty Murray (Washington), although, at present, all three are ahead in their re-election bids. The top Republican Senate target seems to be Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who was appointed to the position by her father, former Senator Frank Murkowski, after he left the Senate to become Governor. Ironically, thus, her first Senate first race is to be re-elected; she is facing a strong challenge from former Governor Tony Knowles.

Democrats will also mount a strong race in Pennsylvania, a state carried by Al Gore in 2000, where Senator Arlen Specter is being challenged by Congressman Joe Hoeffel. As President Bush’s poll numbers continue to drop, Democrats are likely to increasing their efforts in other states including Missouri and New Hampshire, while Republicans may step-up their challenges to other incumbent Democratic Senators.

With so much at stake on both sides, the financial and political resources considered essential for victory will flow to the most competitive states, as each party will do all it can to gain control of the Senate in the November elections.

This scenario provides many opportunities for Indian Americans who wish to become involved. Obviously, those Indian Americans who live in a state with a contested Senate race, like New York, ought to strongly support the candidate of their choice by contributing funds, time and, of course, voting on election day.

It is also most appropriate for Indian Americans who wish to do so to contribute to candidates in any of the other Senate races. As was pointed out in the first article in this series, it is most useful to make such contributions in a manner that that the candidates know who the donors are and what issues are of concern to such contributors. Responding to direct mail solicitations or making a contribution merely in the hope of achieving a photo-op with the candidate tends to minimize the effectiveness of such efforts.

(Any readers of News India-Times who wish more in-depth background on the candidates in any of the 34 Senate races or more information on how to be more politically involved are encouraged to contact the Indian American Center for Political Awareness at 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW; Suite 1000; Washington, D.C., 20515; Web site at www. or emails at iacfpa or ralphn)

(Ralph Nurnberger is a Washington Associate of the Indian American Center for Political Awareness [IACPA]. He is also a Professor at Georgetown University and a Partner in Nurnberger & Associates. This article is made possible by IACPA, established in 1994 to assist the overall community to become politically better informed and more effective.)