The Thicket at State Legislatures

President Addresses High School Graduation Rates

by Jon Kuhl

President Obama offered a proposal during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night concerning the age at which high school students are allowed to drop out. But in doing so, he left an important question unanswered:  How do we pay for it?

“We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every state to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.” – President Obama

The president may find partners in the states as he works to pursue this goal. Sharing information, providing technical assistance, and opening up further dialogue are all measures states would welcome.  Indeed, NCSL’s Task Force on School Dropout Prevention and Recovery found evidence suggesting that raising the maximum compulsory school age above 16 curtails dropout rates and produces other positive results.

Background:

• Compulsory school age requirements continue to be a hot topic for state lawmakers. In 2011, at least six states—Alaska, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana and Rhode Island—considered legislation to raise the “dropout” age to 18, although only Rhode Island did so. To date, 21 states and the District of Columbia require students to stay in school until the age of 18. Almost all include exceptions for mental illness and physical disability, or with parent permission.
• According to data from a May 2011 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report, the high school graduation rate for the 2008-09 school year was 75.5 percent.
• State and local governments pay for the vast majority of K-12 education, while the federal government contributes around 10 percent.

                     

 

 

Study Finds Gender Gap in Political Ambition

by Katie Ziegler

A new report from the Women and Politics Institute at American University examines a question that may be familiar to observers of state legislatures. Why aren’t there more women in public office? At the state legislative level, the ratio of female to male lawmakers has grown by fewer than five percentage points in the past two decades. Women were 20 percent of all legislators following the 1992 elections; today, several states have approximately one-third female legislators, but the national ratio is just 23.6 percent. This “slow growth” isn’t due to bias at the ballot box, as female candidates have been shown to be just as likely as male candidates to win their races. In Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics, Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox examine the important first step before any candidate can think about election day: the decision to run for office in the first place.

Lawless and Fox conclude that there is a substantial gender gap in political ambition: men were 16 percentage points more likely than women to have considered running for office, and this gap persists across demographic factors including political party, age, race, income, profession, and region of the country. Their data is drawn from the survey responses of nearly 4,000 men and women with the professional backgrounds that tend to yield candidates for public office: law, business, education, and political activism. The men and women had equivalent knowledge and experience, and yet, across all sectors, women were less likely to express interest in running for office. The authors conducted a similar survey in 2001, and there has been virtually no change in the political ambition gender gap in the intervening ten years.

Lawless and Fox identify seven factors that contribute to this gender gap:

1. Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates.
2. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s candidacies aggravated women’s perceptions of gender bias in electoral politics.
3. Women are less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office.
4. Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confident, and more risk averse than male potential candidates.
5. Women react more negatively than men to the necessities of campaigns.
6. Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office–from anyone.
7. Women are still responsible for the majority of childcare and household tasks.

The report concludes, “many barriers to women’s interest in running for office can be overcome only with major cultural and political changes. But in the meantime, our results suggest that recruiting female candidates and disseminating information about the electoral environment and women’s successes can help narrow the gender gap and increase women’s numeric representation.” Several groups around the country are working to close the ambition gap by doing just that: actively recruiting female candidates and holding campaign trainings and mentoring forums. NCSL will be watching to see whether this increased attention to female candidates will result in an increase in women elected in November.

Online Gambling a Moneymaker for States?

By Alex Fitzsimmons

Some states are considering doubling down or cashing in on a new Justice Department opinion regarding online gambling.

According to the opinion, in-state Internet gambling does not violate federal law as long as it doesn't involve sports betting.

Issued just before Christmas, the opinion paves the way for states to move forward with stalled plans to introduce a variety of online gambling ventures. According to Politico, Washington, D.C., intends to offer online poker and blackjack by April, while Illinois plans to sell lottery tickets and New Jersey hopes to become the “epicenter” of online gambling.

It also protects the rights of states that oppose the expansion of online gambling, such as Florida, whose attorney general issued an opinion last week advising against the approval of new slot machines in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

The only problem: Congress is considering federal legislation, claiming that states lack the resources to enforce Internet gambling laws. States counter that a federal law would impinge on their rights. NCSL believes Congress must preserve state authority to allow or prohibit Internet gambling. Any federal action should respect the rights of states that choose to prohibit Internet gambling.

In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits financial transactions in support of illegal online gambling. But Congress never defined “illegal online gambling,” except to exclude Internet gambling conducted solely within the boundaries of a state or tribe. This exclusion serves as the legal basis for state sovereignty over online gambling.

According to the American Gaming Association (AGA), online gambling revenues from U.S. bettors exceeded $4 billion in 2010, but most of those revenues went to offshore operators. In a white paper issued last year, the AGA outlined measures to legalize and regulate online gambling in the United States. These measures would secure the jobs and tax revenue Internet gambling generates while controlling potential social risks with tight regulation.

Whether states choose to fold 'em or hold 'em when it comes to online gambling remains to be seen.

Alex Fitzsimmons is an intern in the public affairs division in NCSL's Washington D.C. office.

Legislative Leaders Attend Agriculture Summit

By Marcus Peterson & Tamra Spielvogel

It came as no surprise to attendees of the Legislative Agriculture Chairs Summit that agriculture is one of the few sectors in the country running a positive trade balance. The annual summit is the only national meeting dedicated to state and provincial committee, caucus or chamber leaders with an interest in agriculture and rural policy. Legislative leaders from 47 states and seven Canadian provinces attended.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman opened the summit focusing on the importance agriculture has played in keeping his state’s unemployment rate at a low 4.1 percent. Legislators were also briefed by U.S. House and Senate Agriculture and Energy Committee staffers on the upcoming legislative landscape and reauthorization of the “2008 Farm Bill.” They met with U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, as well as other key USDA and White House staff, to discuss critical agriculture challenges facing rural communities. Other sessions discussed rural energy, animal welfare, invasive species, food safety, and farmland taxation.

The meeting provided state and provincial lawmakers with new tools to help cultivate thriving rural communities and keep agriculture profitable. The summit was co-hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Council of State Governments (CSG), and was held in Washington, D.C., January 6 – 8th.

New Leaders Take the Reins to Reign in 2012

by Tim Storey

By the end of this week, 38 legislatures will be officially in session including several  operating with new leaders. The most notable leadership changes are in the Mississippi House and the Virginia Senate where 2011 elections led to Republican takeovers and Republicans in the top roles.

(For a complete list of current legislative leaders click here.)

The Mississippi House elected its first Republican Speaker in 135 years on January 3 when Clinton, Mississippi attorney Philip Gunn was chosen unanimously by House members to be the new speaker following the November 2011 election in which Republicans won a 64-58 majority in the chamber. Speaker Gunn was first elected to the House in 2003. In addition to his legislative and legal work, he serves on the Board of Trustees for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Representative Greg Snowden was chosen by the House to be the speaker pro tem.

In the Mississippi Senate, Republicans expanded their majority in the chamber to 31-21 last November, and voters chose Tate Reeves to be the lieutenant governor and head of the Senate. On opening day, Senator Terry Brown was selected by his peers to be the new President Pro Tem.

Last November's elections in Virginia led to a 20 D - 20 R tie in the Old Dominion Senate making for an interesting couple of months leading up the convening of the regular session last Wednesday. Republicans asserted that they would control the chamber because the Republican lieutenant governor would break tie votes in the chamber. Democrats filed suit in state court claiming that the Constitution did not allow the GOP to organize as the majority with the lieutenant governor as a tie-breaker. The court declined to intervene although the case is still pending. When the Virginia Senate convened last week, there was a prolonged, and respectful, debate culminating with Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling casting a decisive tie-breaking vote for the GOP to run the chamber. Republican Senator Thomas Norment will serve as the Majority Leader with Senator Richard Saslaw leading the Democrats.

Primary and Caucus Dates

With two presidential nominating events complete (Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary), people are checking calendars to learn what’s next.  The best place is NCSL’s new 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar, and its companion, a state-ordered table, 2012 State and Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates. We like to think these are the most accurate lists anywhere--and the easiest to understand.

My colleague, Jennie Bowser, created the lists and checked them against a multitude of official sources.  She says, “this year, it was more complicated than ever to assemble this data.”   Here are a few of the complications:  

• State legislatures decide the dates of primaries (except in the states where parties do);
• Political parties decide the dates of caucuses (except in the states where the legislature does);
• The two major parties don’t always use the same dates in a given state;
• More states changed their dates this year than in any of the last three presidential cycles (and Texas’ date could still change); and,
• Some primaries are “beauty contests” only, designed to bring attention to a state but not to choose delegates to the national conventions where presidential nominees are officially selected.

To understand all the vagaries in presidential nominating events, the National Association of Secretaries of State has just released a comprehensive report,  NASS 2012 Presidential Primaries Guide.  It can be downloaded from the NASS homepage.  In it, you’ll learn the state-by-state details on how the date is chosen, how the primary is funded, who can vote in the primary, and where to find official results.

TVW Introduces SCOUT

by Jan Goehring

TVW, the Washington state public affairs network, is offering an innovative service to citizens who want to follow public policy issues and the legislative process. This new tool, called SCOUT, allows the public to easily keep track of issues. SCOUT will track video and bill information and automatically send it to those who open a free account.

According to TVW, SCOUT offers:

• Access to tracking all TVW video and legislative documentation (bills, bill reports, amendments, etc.).
• The ability to save video, legislative documents or highlighted video clips in a personal account library.
• Options to share video, documents or highlighted video clips via e-mail, social media like Facebook and Twitter, or create formal reports.

"To My Great Shame"

by Peggy Kerns

Convicted felon Jack Abramoff stood before the Kentucky legislature and bared his soul, opening up about his years as a Washington lobbyist and his conviction for fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy.  Though he has spoken at Harvard and on hundreds of television and radio programs, this was his first time speaking to a state legislative body.

“I thought of myself as a strategic adviser, not a lobbyist,” he said.  “I believed I was doing what everyone else was doing–only I was doing it better,” Abramoff added. “I always thought−if it’s worth doing, it’s worth overdoing.” He attributed this arrogance to thinking he was above the law.  “I lost sight of the line in the sand and of right and wrong,” he said. “To my great shame.”

From his prison cell, Abramoff decided that he had a base of knowledge that he should not waste. To try to rectify his crimes, his new mission is to educate lawmakers and the public about how the system should be reformed. 

Abramoff spoke at the annual ethics training sponsored by the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission. Previous speakers included respected names such as Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute, and Rushworth Kidder, Institute for Global Ethics.  This year, the commission reached beyond “safe” speakers and brought in Abramoff.  His speaking fee of $5,000 is the price the commission normally pays.  In Abramoff’s case, his fee goes toward his $44 million debt in court-ordered restitution to Indian tribes and other clients.  He also is promoting his book, Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From American’s Most Notorious Lobbyist. 

Initially, the appearance of Abramoff was controversial among many Kentucky legislators. After hearing his speech, some changed their minds.  Legislators from both sides of the aisle thought Abramoff had significant things to say, according to the Courier-Journal.  Speaker Greg Stumbo said the talk will help lawmakers discern what is proper in their relationships with lobbyists.  Rep. Mike Harmon said he had some reservations initially, but believes Abramoff made some good points and was worth the speaking fee.

Award-Winning Calendar Hitting Legislative Mailboxes

by Katie Ziegler

NCSL recently printed the eighth edition of our wall calendar showcasing the architectural beauty and diversity of the nation's state capitol buildings. The 2012 calendar features the Illinois, California and Minnesota capitol domes and is a handy quick reference for the dates of NCSL's major meetings and for the contact information of our two offices. The pictures are by artist Edward Crim, who has photographed most state capitols and whose work is well worth a look. A previous edition of the calendar won the Blue Pencil Award of Excellence from the National Association of Government Communicators.

All state legislators and more than 5,000 legislative staff members, as well as NCSL Foundation sponsors and Legislative Summit exhibitors, should receive a calendar soon. If we missed you, please visit the NCSL Bookstore or email books@ncsl.org to order a copy.

We hope you enjoy the calendar and that it serves as a reminder to call on us all year 'round!

Federal Court Rejects Texas Legislature's Claim of Legislative Privilege

by Karl Kurtz

Earlier this week a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. ordered the Texas Legislature to hand over documents that it had withheld in a dispute over redistricting maps. The Justice Department and plaintiffs sought access to the documents prepared by legislators and legislative staff. The Legislature claimed that the documents were protected by legislative privilege and an attorney-client relationship between the staff of the Texas Legislative Council and the members of the Legislature.

Legislative privilege is the doctrine found in the federal Constitution and 43 state constitutions that provides legal protection to legislators in the conduct of legislative business. The intent is to shield them from threats of judicial or executive intervention in their work.

The court rejected the Texas claim of legislative privilege, saying that the Legislature had failed to cite any statute or case law that would justify the privilege. Moreover, the court said that while it recognizes the confidentiality between staff and legislators provided for in the Texas Government Code, that confidentiality does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Finally, the court ruled that communications between legislative staff and members about the case had to be disclosed because the legislators involved did not claim privilege (the court did not say how it would have ruled if they had claimed privilege).

The Texas Redistricting blog has a more extensive summary of the case and links to the court's decision.

To my inexpert and non-legal eyes, this case seems to hinge mainly on the language of Texas statutes and case law, so it may not have major implications for questions of legislative privilege and attorney-client relationships in other states. However, at the very least it seems to be a case of a federal court joining with state courts in a tendency to side with government openness and transparency against the competing value of the right of legislatures to maintain independent decision-making processes. Ohio State law professor Steven F. Huefner reports in a 2003 law review article, "The Neglected Value of the Legislative Privilege in State Legislatures":

While some of these states' [legislative privilege] provisions have never been applied, recent judicial interpretations in other states have departed from settled federal interpretations of the legislative privilege, failing to apply it broadly to protect the legislative process and instead unduly favoring ideals of open government.

He goes on to conclude:

...To protect representative democracy, the legislative privilege merits a more robust application at the state level than some state courts have been willing to give it.

It now appears that Prof. Huefner can add the federal courts to his plea.

In addition to the Huefner article, my colleague, Kae Warnock has compiled some useful resources on the subject of legislative privilege, legislative attorney-client relationships and confidentiality:

• "Legislative Immunity in Minnesota" by former Senate Counsel Peter Wattson includes extensive citations of federal and state case law (not just Minnesota).
• "Representing Representatives: Ethical Considerations for the Legislature's Attorneys," a 2003 law review article by former Wisconsin staffer Rob Marchant
• Kae's own informal compilation of confidentiality policies and attorney-client privilege statutes and case law.

2012 Legislative Sessions are Off and Running

by Angela Andrews

Happy New Year! Or should I say, Happy New Session? The start of the year means that most state legislators are returning to work and convening their sessions. Legislatures in 46 states and six territories are meeting in 2012. All six territories and 39 states will convene their legislative sessions in January (sixteen of them started this week). The remaining seven states will convene in either February or March.

Almost all state legislatures are in the second year of their biennium. However, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia are starting the first year of their legislative session because they have odd-year elections and start a new biennium in the even-numbered year. Four legislatures will not meet in 2012 (barring special sessions), as they are biennial legislatures and meet every other year: Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas.

Some of you legislative junkies might know that Florida typically convenes in March and adjourns in May; however, you may have noticed on our 2012 session calendar that Florida will convene their session next Tuesday, January 10 and adjourn on March 9, Why? To handle redistricting.

To see a listing of all the legislatures that convene in January, check out our 2012 legislative session calendar by convening date. Also, check back here in early February as we will highlight those legislatures that convene in the second month of the year. We'll also provide some more legislative session facts and tidbits.

Photo credit: stltoday.com

Supreme Court Takes on Federalism Cases: Big Impact on States

By Jon Kuhl

The U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing three major cases that deal with federalism this term, cases that are expected to draw bright lines on where state and federal powers begin and end. Below are brief descriptions of the three cases and an interview with NCSL’s Senior Federal Affairs Counsel Susan Frederick, who explains what the court will be deciding.

Affordable Care Act
Of particular interest for states is whether the federal government can force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration with the risk of losing that money if they refuse. Twenty-six states, led by Florida, brought the case. Oral arguments are expected in late February or early March, with a ruling sometime in June.

Immigration: Arizona’s S.B. 1070 Law
With partisan gridlock in Washington, Arizona, like many states, dealt with the issue of immigration on its own. In petitioning the court to hear the case, Arizona asserts, “It is the gateway for nearly half of the nation’s illegal border crossings. … Arizona has repeatedly asked the federal government for more vigorous enforcement of the federal immigration laws, but to no avail.” The federal government, on the other hand, asserts Arizona’s law is taking on authority it does not have, authority that rests instead with the federal government. A ruling on this case is expected in June.

Texas Redistricting
An expedited hearing will take place to decide the fate of Texas’ redistricting map, which had been called into question by a lower federal court for undermining the voting rights of Latinos and African Americans. At issue for the court is whether to defer to the state legislature in drawing congressional districts. Oral arguments will begin on Jan. 9, and an opinion is expected early this spring.

 
Susan Frederick has worked in NCSL’s Washington, DC State-Federal Relations office for the past 11 years and holds a J.D. from American University.

Controversy Over Public Access to the Capitol in Indiana

by Karl Kurtz

Last week, the heads of the Indiana state department of administration, state police and state fire marshal jointly announced that access to the Statehouse will now be limited to 3,000 people, including the 1,700 legislators, staff, and administrators who work in the building. The new limits, issued in the name of public safety, were apparently in reaction to the protests at the capitol over public employee collective bargaining rights during last year's legislative sessions and in anticipation of similar demonstrations this year over proposed right to work laws.

A somewhat sarcastic article at IndyStar.com makes it sound like both the announcement and the plan were a bit ham-handed. One door to the Statehouse was set aside for people who worked in the building, registered lobbyists, those who had signed up in advance for tours, and people who had been authorized by a legislator to testify before a committee. The general public was required to pass through another entrance. The notion of certain people being privileged did not go over well.

Today, wiser elected officials prevailed: Gov. Mitch Daniels held a news conference to announce that he was rescinding the order.

Daniels said he made the decision this morning after consulting with legislative leaders and taking into consideration public reaction to the new rules, which had capped access at about 3,000.

“I’ve asked the fire marshal to rescind the new policy and to restore the traditional unlimited access here to the building,” Daniels said. “That’s in place right now. All three doors are open. ... We will do that unless and until there’s a problem.”

Daniels said that “anything goes” policy will continue “as long as that works.”

If situations arise where public safety is endangered, he said, the police “have my authority to do something different at that point.”

Daniels said the security issues were “not idle concerns.”

But, he added, “Indiana respects fervently the rights of minorities” including those of labor union members.

My colleague, Kae Warnock, tells me that the only other state that she knows of that had imposed a limit on capitol access was Wisconsin, which set the number of people allowed in the building at 9,000 in the midst of that state's prolonged occupation of the capitol last year. But the Wisconsin rule didn't give any special privileges to certain classes of people, and the public could use all available entrances to the building. Other states regulate access on an ad hoc basis, judging each situation on the merits at the time--the same policy that Gov. Daniels has now apparently authorized.

Photo credit: Charlie Nye, The Star

Great Photo of Indiana Speaker

A story about state right to work laws on the front page of the business section of The New York Times today included this striking photo of Indiana Speaker Brian C. Bosma from the gallery overlooking the House chamber.

The story focuses on a right to work proposal in Indiana but also mentions recent and pending legislation in Maine, Michigan, Missouri and New Hampshire.

’Tis The Season: State Capitol Holiday Traditions

By NCSL's Public Affairs Staff

NCSL has its own tradition of collecting photos from legislative staff across the country that feature the capitol building or legislative building decorated for the holiday season.

 

You can watch the entire slideshow on NCSL's Flickr account. But there are other holiday traditions celebrated across the country. From Wisconsin to Georgia, state lawmakers are winding down their legislative sessions and ushering in the New Year with petting zoos, tree lightings, choir singers, and other holiday traditions.

In California, the State Capitol Museum is welcoming visitors to enjoy daily musical performances in the Capitol Rotunda, including the Salvation Army brass quintet and Cal-Trans, a choir comprised of a "spirited" group of state employees.

On December 10, families visiting the state capitol in Washington were treated to free pictures with Santa, a petting zoo, pony rides, and a hayride through Olympia's historic South Capitol neighborhood.

The Capitol Museum Guild of Arizona decorated the Capitol Rotunda at the annual holiday tree trimming on December 1, the last trimming before Arizona celebrates its statehood centennial. Arizona achieved statehood on February 14, 1912.

In North Carolina, the state capitol is honoring its Tar Heel heritage with a tree from Ashe County. Delivered on November 28 by the family-owned Peaks Farms, the 24-foot Fraser Fir was installed in the capitol's south plaza. Governor Bev Perdue and the First Gentleman lit the tree on December 8.

The tree lighting in Atlanta went off without a hitch, as Governor Nathan Deal and the First Lady participated in the annual event on Dec. 8. Festivities included live entertainment courtesy of the Atlanta Boys Choir.

In Wisconsin and Rhode Island, however, Christmas wars soured the holiday cheer.

Changes in Top Legislative Staff Positions

The end of the calendar year has brought an unusual flurry of changes in top legislative staff positions. Unusual because staff changes most often occur after elections at the end of a biennium, not so much in the middle of the normal two year cycle. Here is our staff's collective knowledge of major staff changes since about the first of September:

• It's not often that a retiring House staffer anywhere is described by current and former governors and House and Senate members as “a masterful politician,” “brilliant,” “invaluable” and “irreplaceable," but that's what they're saying about Arkansas House Parliamentarian Tim Massanelli. 78-year-old Tim is almost certainly the most senior top staffer who is departing: He began working for the Arkansas House in 1973 and has been parliamentarian since 1975.
• Laura Clemens, clerk of the Ohio House, has left that position to become director of government affairs for the Ohio Casino Control Commission. Laura is a past president of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries (ASLCS) and member of the NCSL Executive Committee. Thomas Sherman, who preceded her as clerk when the House was under Democratic control, is the acting clerk.
• Joyce Bigbee, Director of the Alabama Legislative Fiscal Office, has announced that she is retiring January 1, 2012. Joyce has worked for the office for 33 years and has been director since 1987. She is a past president of the National Association of Legislative Fiscal Offices. Norris Green will become interim director.
• Rob Marchant, chief clerk and director of operations of the Wisconsin Senate since 2004, has resigned to become deputy secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds, which oversees the state pension system and the state employee health care system. Rob is the immediate-past president of ASLCS.
• Lorne Malkiewich has announced his intention to leave his positon as director of the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau before the next session of the Legislature in 2013. He began working for the LCB straight out of law school 30 years ago and has served as director for the last 18 years. A committee has been named to search for a replacement.
• Florida's Philip Twogood left his position as secretary of the Senate to become coordinator of the Legislature's Office of Program Planning and Government Accountability (OPPAGA). Phil is a former member of NCSL's Executive Committee. Debbie Brown is the interim secretary of the Florida Senate.
• Jillayne Rock is stepping down as secretary of the Illinois Senate to care for a new family. A search committee is seeking her replacement.
• Jeannine Wood, secretary of the Idaho Senate since 1990, has retired. Jeannine began work for the Legislature in 1976. A remarkable tribute to Jeannine by the Idaho Statesman's Dan Popkey begins, "The Idaho Senate has lost its queen. Secretary of the Senate Jeannine Wood has been a regal presence since 1990, overseeing lawmaking with grace, dignity and class." Jennifer Novak is the new secretary of the Senate.
• Luke Martland is the new director and chief counsel of the Vermont Legislative Council, replacing Emily Bergquist who took a position with the state Tax Department earlier this year. Luke has a decade of experience in New York state government in the offices of the attorney general and the governor.
• Patricia Mau-Shimizu, formerly chief clerk of the Hawaii House since 1993, is the new director of the Hawaii Bar Association. C.J. Leong is the acting chief clerk.
• Alaska Legislative Auditor Pat Davidson is retiring at the end of December 2011. Kristin Curtis will be acting legislative auditor.
• Dave Larson is retiring as director of Kansas Legislative Computing Services. Dave is a past president of the National Association of Legislative Information Technology.
• Larry Barish, manager of research and information services for the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau and editor of the Wisconsin Blue Book since 1987, is retiring at the end of the year. Larry served two terms as chair of NCSL's Research and Committee Staff Section.

Add a comment below or e-mail The Thicket if we have missed some changes in top leadership staff positions in the last several months.

The Texas Redistricting Case Explained

by Karl Kurtz

We haven't written about the U.S. Supreme Court accepting the Texas redistricting case in large part because it has been in the national news. But I've read half a dozen stories about the challenge that were either inaccurate or so murky that it was hard to make sense of the case--which is complex to begin with. Yesterday, though, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote "Texas redistricting case: Five things you need to know." It's a tidy summary of an untidy case and recommended reading. It includes this speculation on two of the more extreme possible outcomes of a Supreme Court ruling:

The real question, then, is what kind of instruction the Supreme Court offers. Those watching the process suggest two potentially far-reaching outcomes (among many other possibilities, which are too numerous to name).

First, the Supreme Court could tell the three-judge panel in San Antonio that it needs to draw something closer to the map drawn by the state legislature. Or second — and this is the Nuclear Option — it could say that the state should simply use the map drawn by the state legislature.

The former option would set a new standard when it comes to court-drawn maps. Currently, court-drawn maps are drawn with deference to the last constitutionally-approved map available (i.e. the existing map). Changing the standard would give state legislatures greater power over the final product, even in the event that their maps are invalidated.

The latter would be the big one, as some suggest it would essentially invalidate the section of the Voting Rights Act — Section 5 — that requires states like Texas to get pre-clearance. Essentially, the maps would no longer have to be pre-cleared. This would allow these states greater freedom to draw their maps and increase the burden on minority groups and others who may fight the maps in court. These groups would no longer have an avenue to stop the maps before they are enacted.

This is the first redistricting case that SCOTUS has accepted in the 2010 redistricting cycle and the first case since the high Court ruled in Bartlett vs. Strickland (North Carolina) in 2009.

New Report Says Term Limits Detrimental to Missouri Legislature

by Karl Kurtz

A new report from the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri concludes that term limits have had a negative effect on the independence and decision-making capability of the Missouri General Assembly. Here's a portion of the abstract:

Legislative term limits were approved by Missouri voters in 1992 and took full effect in the House in 2001 and in the Senate in 2003. This report...concludes that term limits has had a negative impact on the level of knowledge in the legislature, has changed but not reduced the influence of lobbyists, has created a new and non-legislative career orientation among legislators, and has weakened the General Assembly as a legislative body. Term limits, then, achieved none of the sponsors’ principal objectives and has significant negative consequences that were not anticipated by either supporters or opponents.

The author of the report, David Valentine, associate director of the school and a former research director for the Missouri Senate, has compiled a number of useful tables and charts that conclude:

• The average within-chamber tenure of Missouri legislators in 2011 is about what it was in the 1920s

• The tenure of legislative leaders, including the chairs of the appropriations committees, ranges from two to five years--about half of what it was before term limits.
• The loss of experienced members has resulted in a significant loss of institutional memory.
• The legislature has become a stepping stone for legislators who want to continue to have careers in politics. "If you're a political animal, you're already setting your sights on something else instead of focusing on your job and doing the work of your constituents," says former Rep. Patrick Naeger.
• Lobbyists have had to change how they operate but have adapted to the new environment.

The report is consistent with findings of other studies of the effects of term limits in various states.

Hollywood Comes to the Virginia Capitol

by Meagan Dorsch

When I traveled to Richmond recently to conduct social media training for a group of legislative assistants at the Virginia Legislature, I didn't know that I would also be rubbing elbows with Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, Steven Spielberg, James Spader and Daniel Day Lewis! OK, so I didn't get to work alongside some of Hollywood's biggest stars, but they were at the Capitol at the same time as I was, as they  have been for the last eight weeks, shooting the new movie Lincoln.

The movie is based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's novel, "Team of Rivals," and has an A-list cast of stars and supporting actors and hundreds of movie extras who have taken over the state capitol in Richmond.

Clerk of the House Paul Nardo provided me some insight on what it has been like to work on (or around) a Hollywood movie set.

They say working in the legislature is never dull and brings something new each day. Nothing could be more true than when Hollywood comes to your legislature, camps out at your front door, on your back stoop and in your rotunda and legislative chambers. That's been the experience for the House and Senate Clerk's Offices at Mr. Jefferson's Capitol in Richmond.

There is, of course, a bit of irony in making a film about Lincoln in the former Capitol of the Confederacy. The site was chosen in part because its temple style exterior could be made to look like the White House. Set designers have built a "new" portico to mimic the White House, and they have transformed the exterior by bringing in cannons, tents, trees and shrubs, together with tons of mulch.

Meeting Public Scrutiny

by Bruce Feustel

As a former state attorney general, Speaker Greg Stumbo of Kentucky has an unusual perspective of having moved from elected executive branch official to the legislature. "When I was the AG, everyone believed me, but as a legislator, nobody believes me." He was exaggerating for effect, but his point was that the public tends to give the benefit of the doubt to executive branch officials, but be highly skeptical of legislators.

In giving advice to his legislative colleagues about budgeting for the legislature in hard times at NCSL's Fall Forum in Tampa last week, Speaker Stumbo said that legislators need to stand up for their branch of government. "[Legislatures] have traditionally underfunded themselves because of the intense public scrutiny," he said. He believes that legislatures should take a fair share of cuts, but should also assert the need for funding the legislative branch.

He helps Kentucky legislators prepare to explain the case for legislative expenditures. He advises them to be clear and honest in making explanations and to use common sense reasoning to explain decisions. He sends out talking points for legislators for conversations with their constituents about the cost of the legislature. Speaker Stumbo urged legislators to take on the challenge of high public scrutiny for legislators, continue to fund the legislature at fair levels, and be prepared to tell constituents why the legislature needs to be strong.

Photo credit: Bluegrass Politics

Online Holiday Shopping a Loss for States

by Alex Fitzsimmons, NCSL Communications Intern

As the holiday shopping season kicked off over Thanksgiving weekend, millions of people embraced the Black Friday tradition of storming their local shops in search of the best deals. But many other eager shoppers waited until Monday to hunt for bargains from the comfort of their homes.

Cyber Monday sales shattered records and gave Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year, a run for its money. According to IBM, online sales topped $1.2 billion, up more than 30 percent from just a year ago. Sales on mobile devices also surged to 14.3 percent of all Black Friday sales, compared with 5.6 percent in 2010.

For online sellers, Santa came early this year. But for state governments, Cyber Monday served as a sobering reminder of missed revenue opportunities.

Many states are struggling to raise revenue and close budget gaps. But a loophole in the tax code prevents states from collecting sales taxes from online sellers who conduct business, but lack a physical presence, in their state. The Supreme Court ruled that because of interstate commerce issues, states could not collect sales taxes from out-of-state sellers without congressional approval.

As a result, states have suffered: It is estimated that state budgets lost about $18 billion in uncollected sales taxes in 2008 and are expected to lose $23 billion in 2012. States can no longer afford not to collect what's legally theirs.

Washington's TVW Launches New Website

by Jan Goehring

TVW, sometimes referred to as the Washington state C-SPAN, recently launched a new website at TVW.org to help viewers more easily access programming. TVW provides televised coverage of the state Legislature, Supreme Court, Executive Branch and key policy-related stories.

The site offers a new design and improved search capabilities. TVW reports that it has developed an innovative video player with enhanced search features. For example, a viewable scroll bar that shows thumbnail screenshots and a keyword search within videos will improve searches and navigation within the program. It will also provide a copy of the meeting agenda for legislative events and direct access to all legislative documents associated with the event. The ability to share videos with social networking sites will also be available.      

“We hope that the new TVW.org will be a much more practical and functional tool for citizens to use to stay informed about the important public policy issues being debated in our state,” says Greg Lane, TVW president.

State public affairs networks in 23 states and the District of Columbia, air coverage of state legislative, executive, judicial, and agency proceedings on cable TV. The National Association of Public Affairs Networks, Inc. (NAPAN) supports the establishment and expansion of these networks to provide citizens with access to unbiased information about state government and policy.  

"A Jigsaw Puzzle Half-finished"

by Karl Kurtz

In the wake of a threat by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to veto a redistricting plan drawn up by New York Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans, the New York Times provides a nice historical footnote on how Governors Alfred Smith and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had vetoed legislative plans in their day. Their veto messages contained some colorful language:

Smith blamed local party leaders “who were unquestionably actuated by political motives.” He said they went so far as “to bedevil the whole situation” by creating a skinny district in Manhattan that zigzagged from the Hudson River east from Bleecker Street on the south and 101st Street on the north. The district, which was designed to ensure the election of a Republican state senator, violated the constitutional requirement for compactness, Smith said.

The lines, Smith wrote in his veto message in 1926, “go around corners and up alleys to escape any portion of the population of Manhattan Island that experience teaches are prone to vote the Democratic ticket.”

“It is high time that political parties be given to understand that they cannot make a joke out of the Constitution of this state for the purposes of helping their political organizations,” Smith concluded.

Governor Roosevelt vetoed reapportion plans passed by the Republican legislators twice, in 1929 and 1930, on the same grounds that districts should be equal in population and as compact as practicable. He described the districts drawn by lawmakers to preserve their seats or to dislodge Democrats as “a jigsaw puzzle half-finished” and a “grotesque and unconstitutional reapportionment.”

A rose from The Thicket to Jeff Wice.

Photo credit: Associated Press

What the Deficit Reduction Means for States

Disappointed by the congressional super committee's failure to reach a deficit reduction agreement, state legislators are working to understand what the automatic budget cuts mean for their states, and how best to prepare for the cuts.

Of particular concern for lawmakers are the federal funding cuts in education, energy, the environment and criminal justice. And with large cuts to defense spending as well, states with military bases, homeland security operations and defense contractor employers are rightly concerned about a double economic hit.

NCSL policy analyst Jeff Hurley discusses what states can expect from sequestration.

 

   

 

State Pension Reform

Over the past two years, 40 legislatures have revised at least one state retirement plan. The changes range from increasing employee contribution requirements and age and service requirements for retirement to revising cost-of-living adjustments.

The Thursday general session at NCSL's 2011 Fall Forum tackled the issues of state pensions that focused on "hybrid" pensions that several states are considering. This model provides employees with both a traditional pension plan and a 401 (k)-type plan. It has been adopted in Utah and was recently signed into law in Rhode Island. It can provide safer employee benefits than moving entirely to a 401 (k)-type plan, and can be less expensive for governments than a traditional plan. 

NCSL sat down with Utah Senator Daniel Liljenquist to discuss Utah's move to this type of pension plan and what it means for the state. Senator Liljenquist was one of four panelists on the pension reform session at NCSL's Fall Forum. We will have video of the entire panel discussion in the days to come. 

 

 

National Economist Shares Views with Lawmakers on Budget and Economy

Speaking to a packed room of state lawmakers and legislative staffers at NCSL’s 2011 Fall Forum, economist Dr. John Rutledge called for leaders to stop stoking fears and instead calm people down and bring them together to find solutions. “I think you’ve got a tough job,” Rutledge told the room, likening current times to the challenges our nation faced during World War II.

After his talk, Dr. Rutledge sat down with NCSL’s Jon Kuhl for a conversation about the economy, and what priorities he would focus on if he were a state legislator.

 

Presidential Primaries and Legislative Action

by Wendy Underhill

Presidential preference primaries are “primarily” in the portfolio of political parties. 

That sentence draws attention twice: once because it rivals "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers" as a tongue-twister, and again because it begs the question of who else, in addition to political parties, plays a role with primaries. 

The answer is state legislatures, which decide if and when a state will hold (and pay for) a presidential primary. We’ve investigated how states make those decisions, and written about it in the November/December issue of The Canvass, NCSL’s elections newsletter.

In that newsletter we note that the National Association of Secretaries of State has a proposal for changing the current patchwork system to one based on rotating regional primaries; the proposal includes model legislation that states could adopt, although none have so far. NASS has recently released an easy-to-read calendar of primary dates, too.

For the nuts and bolts of the nominating process, we turned to two authoritative sources: Frontloading Headquarters, a well-documented blog devoted entirely to presidential primaries, and  The Green Papers, a webpage with deep data on all things electoral. 

While we defer to the expertise that these sites offer, NCSL is the keeper of data on primary-related legislation. Thinking that this year appeared to be a particularly tumultuous legislative year for primaries, we took a look back through the last two presidential cycles. Here are the data; they don’t necessarily support our hypothesis.
15 presidential primary bills were enacted in 2003, followed by 19 in 2007 and 21 in 2011. Is that an ever-increasing amount?  I’m not so sure; perhaps these numbers represent a normal variation in pre-election year legislation. 

The one thing that stands out this year is that several states took action based on financial considerations (in addition to political ones).  Three states on our list--Alabama, California and New Jersey--combined their presidential primary with their state primary, in large part as a money-saving measure.  And Washington chose to eliminate its primary altogether, also to save money. 

The end result is lots of legislation, some cost savings, and still plenty of opportunities for voters to express their presidential preferences.

Policies to Encourage Savings

By Meagan Dorsch

Saving money for future emergencies can be difficult. Research shows that 25 percent of Americans have no savings.  One way people can save is to commit part of their federal tax refund to a savings account or U.S. savings bond. Many taxpayers, however, are unaware of these options.

In this edition of The Buzz at State Legislatures Qiana Flores of the NCSL Working Families Partnership talks about split refunds and the purchase of US Savings bonds at tax time as low-cost policies to encourage savings. The option to deposit federal tax refunds directly into as many as three different accounts was introduced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in tax season 2007. In 2010, the IRS allowed taxpayers to buy inflation-protected U.S. savings bonds with their federal tax refunds.

MixSavings

*Please click here if you are having trouble with the MP3 player.

When these policies were piloted by the Doorways to Dreams Fund results showed that people, including those who were not in the habit of setting money aside, chose to save.   Qiana talks about the three states that have enacted legislation allowing state tax refunds to be directly deposited into several accounts, as well and provides resources for how legislators can get the word out about the federal split refund and U.S. savings bond option.

This podcast is made possible by the support from the Charles Stuart Mott Foundation. 

 

Two ** for the Virginia Senate?

by Karl Kurtz

In a previous post, "Virginia Senate Tied*", I said that partisan control of the Virginia Senate should be listed with an asterisk to indicate that the chamber is tied between the two parties but under effective Republican control because of the lieutenant governor's tie-breaking vote. Not so fast (maybe).

Yesterday, according to an AP story, Democratic senate leaders said that they plan a court challenge of Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling's right to vote on organizational matters because he is a member of the executive branch:

While the right of lieutenant governors to break Senate ties on general legislation is unchallenged, Saslaw said lieutenant governors in the past have declined to vote on the state budget and judicial elections. In those cases, [Senate Democratic leader Dick] Saslaw said, the Constitution specifies a vote only "by a majority of those elected" for passage. They contend the same is true in organizing the Senate.

"This lieutenant governor says there's nothing he can't vote on. So it's not just a matter of this year; it ought to get settled for all time, and that's the purpose behind this," Saslaw said in a telephone news conference Monday morning.

The issue has never been tested in court.

Republican senators, with the support of Gov. Bob McDonnell, are united in the view that the lieutenant governor has the right to vote on all matters and plan to exercise that power when the chamber organizes itself.

In the meantime we'll re-think how we list the Virginia Senate and leave them in the tied column until the organizational session actually takes place.

Arizona Redistricting Saga

In a special session earlier this month, the Arizona Senate impeached the nonpartisan chair of the redistricting committee on the recommendation of Gov. Jan Brewer. Last week, the state Supreme Court overruled the dismissal of the chair saying that the action "does not demonstrate substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office."

The Republican governor and senators, who maintain that the chair hid her Democratic proclivities in order to get appointed and then voted to draw a plan that favored Democrats, now have to decide what to do. Some members talk about re-stating the reasons for the dismissal that will meet the Court's standards for impeachment. Still others talk about reforming the reform, i.e., placing a measure on the ballot to repeal the independent redistricting commission and going back to having the Legislature draw the lines.

Read all about it in the East Valley Tribune.