The Thicket at State Legislatures

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.

Indiana General Assembly Considers Going Paperless with iPads

by Pam Greenberg

A single bill in the Indiana General Assembly generates about 11,400 sheets of paper, weighing 45.6 lbs. and creating a 3.8 foot stack of paper—that's the equivalent of 1.386 trees! That finding from a new study was one factor in a decision by a subcommittee of the legislature to recommend a pilot project to use iPads during the 2012 session.

Indiana’s Legislative Council Data Processing Subcommittee heard testimony earlier this week about using iPads and other technology to help in the transition to a "paperless" legislature. An in-depth report prepared for the committee by staff of the Legislative Services Agency provides detailed information that should be helpful to other states looking at implementing tablets in the legislature or moving toward a more paperless process.

Some of the findings, such as technical issues and readiness to adopt tablet technology, are specific to Indiana, but the information offered and issues identified are a useful outline of what needs to be considered beyond the simple purchase of an iPad.

Members of the subcommittee were concerned with possible savings and efficiencies from using tablets, so they also asked the Department of Emerging Technologies at Ball State University to study the flow of paper throughout the Indiana legislative process. The study also asked several key questions—“How is paper used in the Legislature?,”  "How would technology impact the process?" and “Why do you print”—which helped focus on the important issues to be addressed.

Colorado Study Offers New Approach to State Budgeting

by Peggy Kerns

To an outsider, the state budget cycle can seem like a maze of numbers and confusion, interwoven with posturing and politics.  The governor and legislators talk to the public about “priorities,” “funding,” and “limitations.” Elected officials may seek public input through town meetings, newsletters, surveys, websites, Facebook and other social media tools. But none of it makes much sense to the average citizen.

The process takes a different turn in recommendations released by the University of Denver’s Strategic Issues Panel on State Government.  The report, Rethinking Colorado’s Government, is the result of a year-long study by a non-partisan panel of 20 business, professional and community leaders from across the state.  I was fortunate to be on the panel as a member of NCSL staff and a former Colorado legislator.

Colorado is in a fiscal crisis with general fund revenues declining by $1.3 billion between fiscal years 2008 - 2010.  Acknowledging, as in the past, Colorado would climb out of the economic recession, the panel also recognized it could−and would−happen again, and reliance on severe budget cuts and voter-approved tax increases were not assured or smart.  With this in mind, the panel engaged in long discussions about citizens’ lack of understanding about the value they are getting for their money.  People complain about high taxes and complain about government services.  And, yet voters seem to approve tax increases more frequently if they understand where the money is going and can judge if it is spent effectively.

How to bring the two together?  To help us reach conclusions, we identified principles that could guide public officials to deal with budgets and policy.

• Place citizens, rather than the institution of government, at the center of decision making.
• Shift the focus of government to creating measurable value for citizens.
• Change the financial structure by using accountability centers to give citizens information on the cost of services.
• Focus on outcomes, with the state as an enabler, not always the provider of public services.
• Allocate resources based on citizen demand.
• Fully fund programs and annual state obligations.

When we, as a consumer, buy something, we usually balance the value of the product with its price.  Is the price of being warm on a blistering cold winter day worth a $50 coat?  We make a value choice.  When we shop for a new car, we assess the cost and benefits of the car, we know how much money we have to spend, and we make a decision.

Republican Victory in Mississippi House Confirmed

Enough votes in close Mississippi races for the House of Representatives have been counted now to say that the Republicans will control that chamber next session. From an Associated Press story:

A majority of the Mississippi House of Representatives will be Republican for the first time since Reconstruction.

Though some counties were still counting absentee and affidavit ballots Monday, Republicans will control at least 62 of the 122 seats when the Legislature convenes Jan. 3.

Totals confirmed Monday show Republican Gene Alday defeated incumbent Democrat John Mayo in House District 25, putting the GOP over the top for control of the House.

The win puts the GOP in almost complete control of state government, including both houses of the Legislature. Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant won the governor's office, and Republicans won all but one other statewide office. Attorney General Jim Hood, who won re-election last week, is the last remaining Democrat in a statewide post....

Assuming all their leads hold, Republicans will post a net gain of nine seats in the general election and one through a party switch. Rep. Donnie Bell of Fulton jumped to the GOP Friday.

Three Republican incumbents lost in the Nov. 8 election, cutting into the potential majority.

Comparing Legislative District Populations

by Morgan Cullen and Karl Kurtz

State senate districts in California and Texas have larger populations than congressional districts. Texas Senate districts after the 2010 census have an average population of 811,000--more people than live in the entire states of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska. For California, with its super-sized Senate districts of 931,000 people, add Delaware and South Dakota to that list of states whose population could fit into one state Senate seat.

The lower houses with the largest average population are in California (465,00) and New Jersey (219,000). New Jersey has large Assembly districts not just because of its relatively large population but also because its 80 members all serve in two-member districts that are the same size as state Senate districts (five other states--Arizona. Idaho, North and South Dakota and Washington--have a similar practice of two-member house districts).

The smallest legislative districts? Head to the 400 member New Hampshire House of Representatives where the average legislative district has a little more than 3,000 people--although that average is a bit misleading since the urban areas in the state have multi-member districts of as many as 20,000+ constituents. The smallest population state senate districts are in North Dakota where senators represent about 14,000 people each.

These are a few of the interesting tidbits that can be culled from NCSL's updated table of average district populations based on 2010 census data.

But we decided to dig a little deeper and look at how state legislative districts have changed over the last three decades in a few selected houses of representatives (click on the chart to enlarge).

Since 1980, Nevada Assembly districts have more than tripled in size from 19,000 people to 67,000. The average Florida House district has nearly doubled in population from 81,000 to 157,000 constituents over the last three decades.

Supreme Court to Hear State Challenges to Federal Health-Care Overhaul

By NCSL staff

On Monday, November 14th the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). One of the more controversial provisions of the Act and one of the central issues to the constitutional challenge is the provision that requires most Americans to obtain health care coverage or to pay a penalty that would be levied by the Internal Revenue Service. This is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” The legal question here is whether the Congress’ overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution when it imposed the mandate.

Another controversial provision of the Act requires states to provide health insurance coverage to more people through the Medicaid program. While the Act provides for increased federal matching payments for some of the new enrollees, states believe the expansion will require substantial new state financial resources. The lower courts have ruled that the state’s argument regarding the Medicaid program were not persuasive because Medicaid is a voluntary program and the federal government has provided additional financial assistance to help states provide for the expanded Medicaid population. The Courts decision on the Medicaid coercion issue will be significant for all states.

Number of Women Legislators "Stuck"

From our friends at CAWP:

Women failed to gain ground in the 2011 state legislative elections, according to the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

“With legislative contests in four states, even if every outstanding race is decided in favor of a woman, the national total will drop from the current number of 1740,” observed CAWP director Debbie Walsh. “The national total of women elected statewide will increase by just one -- to 72 -- as a result of elections in three states. It’s discouraging that we’re nowhere near the peak statewide number of 92 women, achieved in 2000.”

CAWP's press release, "After Legislative Elections in Four States, Number of Women Remains Stuck," provides state by state details, including information about a notable influx of women of color in the New Jersey legislature.