When
Wisconsin
Democrat
Tammy
Baldwin
became
the
nation’s
first
openly
gay
non-incumbent
to
win
election
to
the
U.S.
House
in
1998,
gay
activists
were
hopeful
that
more
out
gay
politicians
soon
would
follow
her
to
the
halls
of
Congress.
At
least
nine
have
tried
in
the
eight
years
since,
but
none
has
won.
Most
have
lost
in
primaries.
This
year,
one
openly
gay
House
candidate
lost
in
a
primary
and
two
dropped
out
for
lack
of
support
or
sufficient
funds
to
wage
a
competitive
political
campaign.
Another
three
—
all
from
California
—
won
their
primaries
and
will
be
on
the
ballot
in
November.
But
none
has
been
endorsed
or
received
financial
support
from
the
Gay
&
Lesbian
Victory
Fund,
the
primary
organization
in
the
gay
rights
movement
focused
on
electing
openly
gay
candidates
to
public
office.
Since
Baldwin’s
1998
landmark
victory,
openly
gay
congressmen
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass.)
and
Jim
Kolbe
(R-Ariz.)
have
continued
to
win
re-election
to
the
House.
But
they
have
done
so
as
incumbents
who
did
not
disclose
their
sexual
orientation
when
they
first
ran
for
public
office
and
won
their
seats.
Kolbe
has
announced
his
retirement
this
year.
Congressman
Gerry
Studds,
another
Massachusetts
Democrat,
was
the
nation’s
first
openly
gay
member
of
Congress,
but
came
out
almost
a
decade
after
winning
office.
He
has
since
retired.
“If
you
study
federal
elections,
you
see
that
98
percent
of
House
members
and
96
percent
of
senators
won
re-election
last
time,”
said
Chuck
Wolfe,
the
Victory
Fund
president.
Wolfe
and
Joe
Solmonese,
president
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
political
group,
explain
the
dearth
in
gays
elected
to
Congress
by
lamenting
the
“safe
seats”
most
House
incumbents
enjoy.
Republican
and
Democratic
Party
leaders
in
state
legislatures
across
the
country
often
strike
deals
to
create
safe
seats
by
carving
up
the
nation’s
435
congressional
districts
in
a
way
that
assures
each
party
would
retain
control
of
certain
districts.
“That’s
the
most
telling
answer,”
said
Wolfe,
for
why
so
few
open
gays
win
election
to
Congress.
“Those
of
us
who
are
trying
to
change
election
outcomes
are
looking
for
open
seats,”
he
said.
Wolfe
noted
that
most
successful
House
candidates
spend
between
$1
and
$1.6
million
to
fund
their
campaigns.
Raising
that
kind
of
money
is
difficult
unless
a
candidate
is
well
known,
Wolfe
said.
The
best
way
to
raise
name
recognition
is
have
been
elected
to
an
important
local
office,
such
as
state
legislator,
mayor
or
city
councilmember,
he
said.
Perhaps
due
to
the
challenge
of
electing
non-incumbents,
press
releases
from
the
Victory
Fund
after
each
Election
Day
tout
the
success
of
the
group’s
endorsees,
the
vast
majority
of
which
are
incumbents.
But
Wolfe
argued
that
the
percentage
of
endorsements
does
not
square
with
where
the
Victory
Fund
spends
most
of
its
resources:
the
campaigns
of
non-incumbents.
“People
get
misled
because
we
endorse
incumbents,”
Wolfe
said.
“But
75
percent
to
90
percent
of
our
money
goes
to
non-incumbents.”
Robin
Brand,
Victory
Fund’s
political
director
who
monitors
the
day-to-day
campaigns
of
openly
gay
candidates,
said
a
growing
number
of
openly
gay
political
hopefuls
have
won
election
to
state
and
local
offices.
Many
are
being
groomed
for
higher
office,
with
Congress
a
likely
place
for
them
to
land,
she
said.
Patrick
Guerriero,
executive
director
of
Log
Cabin
Republicans,
a
national
gay
group,
echoed
that
hope.
“There
are
a
record
number
of
openly
gay
and
lesbian
Americans
running
for
and
serving
in
office,”
he
said.
“And
they
are
doing
it
exactly
the
right
way
by
getting
elected
to
local
offices,
mayoral
seats,
state
legislatures.
They
are
the
farm
team
for
future
federal
and
statewide
candidates.”
Supporters
for
the
three
out
gays
running
for
Congress
in
California
say
they
are
hopeful
that
the
Victory
Fund
and
other
local
and
national
gay
groups
would
consider
endorsing
them
as
their
campaigns
progress
this
summer
toward
the
fall
election.
One
of
the
candidates,
Democrat
Cynthia
Matthews,
surprised
political
observers
when
she
received
42.8
percent
of
the
vote
in
2004
in
her
race
against
Republican
incumbent
David
Dreier
in
a
district
located
northeast
of
Los
Angeles.
Dreier,
who
had
been
in
office
nearly
25
years,
received
53.6
percent,
and
a
Libertarian
Party
candidate
received
3.6
percent.
In
prior
races,
Dreier
had
breezed
to
re-election
with
close
to
70
percent
of
the
vote,
according
to
media
reports
in
California.
Leaders
of
both
parties
said
Matthews,
a
political
newcomer,
benefited
from
a
backlash
against
Dreier
from
conservative
voters
who
blamed
him
for
not
taking
a
harder
line
on
immigration.
This
year,
Matthews
defeated
two
challengers
in
the
Democratic
primary
on
June
6
to
once
earn
the
right
to
challenge
Dreier.
The
Los
Angeles
County
Democratic
Party
backed
one
of
her
opponents
in
the
primary,
Russ
Warner.
Warner
boasted
about
his
son
serving
in
the
Army
in
Iraq,
while
Matthews
expressed
opposition
to
the
Iraq
war.
Democratic
Party
leaders
in
the
District,
believing
Warner
had
a
better
chance
of
defeating
Dreier
in
a
Republican-leaning
district,
were
befuddled
over
Matthew’s
decisive
primary
victory.
Matthews
said
she
was
confident
that
political
sentiment
expressed
by
voters
in
public
opinion
polls
against
Republicans
would
boost
her
vote
totals
in
November,
enabling
her
to
defeat
Dreier.
She
said
her
status
as
an
out
lesbian
does
not
appear
to
have
hurt
her.
“I’m
running
as
the
candidate
for
the
people
who
live
in
the
district,
not
for
the
politicians
in
Washington,”
she
said.
One
reason
the
issue
has
not
surfaced
may
be
that
Dreier
himself
has
long
been
the
subject
of
rumors
about
his
sexual
orientation,
fueled
by
his
own
refusal
to
answer
direct
questions
about
whether
he
is
gay.
In
San
Diego,
Democrat
John
Rinaldi,
another
political
newcomer,
also
defeated
a
prominent
Democrat
in
the
June
6
primary,
after
receiving
the
endorsement
of
two
key
labor
unions.
...
