Sharper State Divide in Congress Seen as ‘New Civil War’

WASHINGTON — A potential backlash from the new tax law and President Donald Trump’s unpopularity in Democratic-leaning states could combine to turn swaths of blue America even bluer in this year’s elections, a development likely to deepen already intense polarization in Congress.

Recent retirement announcements of two senior House Republicans from California put control of their seats in jeopardy and, coupled with some recruiting failures, exacerbated Republican fears of steep midterm losses. The prospect of multiple Republican defeats in California as well as New York and New Jersey threatens to diminish the already thinning ranks of more centrist Republicans.

Democrats might cheer such an outcome. But the long-term result could be a Congress that is more insular, as well as an increase in situations such as the new tax law. In that case, Republicans squeezed revenue from states dominated by Democrats and returned the benefits to Republican strongholds elsewhere across the country.

If House delegations become more sharply divided by state, such geographic favoritism could become more prevalent because the majority party would have less incentive to consider the interests of states where they have little or no membership at political risk. The concern is that lawmakers would retreat even further into their ideological camps, staring warily across state lines.

“It becomes basically that you are in a new civil war,” said Thomas M. Davis III, a former Republican congressman from Virginia who was a top party strategist. “You are going to get more like the tax bill, which, whether you like it or not, is really sectional in how it looks.”

Davis, who once headed the National Republican Congressional Committee, summed up the difference between being part of congressional negotiations or being outside the talks this way: “If you aren’t at the table, you are on the menu.”

Congress has been experiencing a rise in states represented by a single party in the House and Senate. The political news site Smart Politics found that after the 2016 elections, 15 states sent delegations to Washington with members all from one party — double the number from eight years before. Nine are Republican, six are Democratic.

In the others, one party typically dominates a state’s delegation. But even in the most lopsided groups, there are members from the other side scattered through the membership — Republicans outside the urban centers of Democratic states and Democrats representing cities and liberal enclaves of Republican states.

The diversity can provide benefits to both lawmakers and their constituents. Majority parties have traditionally been reluctant to take too direct an aim at states where their numbers are lower since any repercussions could still hit their own members, often the most vulnerable to challenge.

On issues such as energy and transportation, geography and parochialism can trump party allegiance. Having members of both parties from a state rally behind a project can help build a bipartisan critical mass of support.

On a personal level, lawmakers of opposing parties from the same state can develop working relationships and friendships while partnering on state issues, forging ties that can pay off in other ways. Given the current level of partisanship of Congress, lawmakers don’t have many other chances to build strong personal bonds.

But the 2018 outlook poses problems for Republicans, who, like Democrats in the South in recent decades, could find themselves with reduced numbers and influence in some regions of the country.

Take three states in particular. New York has 18 Democrats and nine Republicans, California has 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans, and New Jersey has seven Democrats and five Republicans.

Those Republican numbers are expected to shrink — perhaps significantly — in the November elections because of a number of factors, including the new tax law. The law made a number of changes that will fall harder on these higher-tax states, particularly the new prohibition on the ability to deduct state and local taxes above $10,000.

That could result in a tax increase for homeowners in the Northeast and California who might want to take out their unhappiness on Republicans — whether they voted for the new law or not. Elections held in 2017 have shown that Trump’s low standing has already cost Republicans support from suburban voters critical to the Republican coalition.

Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., who warned his party’s leadership about the potential tax law ramifications, said there would be negative consequences as voters grappled with their tax situation.

“The tax bill is going to hurt Republicans in New York and New Jersey and California,” he said. “It is definitely going to have an impact. We are going to spend the entire campaign defending ourselves against what our own party did. It is entirely self-inflicted.”

In the past, the party might have been inclined to take steps to protect incumbent lawmakers from areas where legislation would have a negative impact on their voters. But Republican leaders eager for a long-sought tax cut seemed to consider the tax overhaul a higher priority than the political outlook for Republican members in higher-tax states, though they did adjust the state and local tax proposal to try to limit the damage as well as find votes for approval of the legislation.

After the tax vote, House Speaker Paul Ryan canceled plans to raise money for a centrist New York Republican as punishment for opposition to the tax bill, a response that penalizes a member of the speaker’s party just when help is most needed to win re-election.

King said he was concerned that states like his own could become represented by a single voice. He said he would like to think he would feel the same apprehension if the roles were reversed and it was Democrats who were in danger of being pushed out.

“We need the clash of ideas,” King said.

But given the election outlook and current trends, the biggest clashes to come in Congress could be between state delegations and members who find they have even less to connect them than they do now.