The Thicket at State Legislatures

NCSL President-elect Senator Bruce Starr Tells House Subcommittee How MAP-21 is Faring At State Level

By Ben Husch

NCSL President-elect Senator Bruce Starr (R-Ore.) told a House subcommittee on Thursday how the implementation of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21) is faring at the state level. MAP-21 was enacted in 2012 and governs the funding and authorization of federal surface and transportation spending.

Testifying before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Starr discussed how states are being affected by a number of changes within MAP-21, including the development of national performance measures, program consolidation and the expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA).

He stressed the need for the federal government to establish a cooperative process through which the performance measures can be crafted. Starr urged the U.S. Department of Transportation to recognize and build off the extensive work states have already completed.

Reporting on states’ satisfaction with program consolidation, Starr explained how it’s allowing states to make it easier for users to acquire funding without having to submit multiple grant applications to multiple programs.  Regarding TIFIA, Starr highlighted how his home state of Oregon is working with the state of Washington to develop a proposal that would increase overall funding for the construction of the I-5 Columbia River Crossing.

During a question-and-answer session with subcommittee members following his testimony, Starr highlighted how states are engaged in numerous efforts to increase funding for transportation programs, ranging from increasing gasoline taxes to indexing current tax rates to implementing new sales taxes. He also urged the committee to look at other forms of funding, including the pilot projects Oregon has taken part in that charge users different amounts based on the number of miles they travel.

The future of transportation will be a major area of focus for the Energy, Transportation and Agriculture Committee next week at the NCSL Spring Forum in Denver, Colorado.

Ben Husch is the committee director of the NCSL Energy, Transportation and Agriculture Committee.

 

Sequestration and the States

By Jon Kuhl

Short of a surprise last-minute deal between the White House and congressional leaders, sequestration will go into effect beginning at midnight Thursday. 

Of the total $85 billion in across-the-board cuts, federal dollars going to the states will be reduced by an estimated $5.8 billion. Considering federal dollars account for 34 percent of total state spending, that’s a lot of money.

In reaction to the impending sequestration, on Tuesday NCSL released a statement highlighting two major state concerns:

1. As all states except Vermont have balanced budget requirements, the continued fiscal uncertainty from Washington makes the state budgeting process near-impossible. If states don’t know how much money is coming from the federal government, how can they plan their budgets for the next year? This is exacerbated by the fact that most states will be wrapping up their legislative sessions within the next few months. States need certainty, and they need it now.

    2.  If the federal government is going to cut the funds it gives to states, it has to give states more flexibility. How can states continue to meet the same standards and requirements with less funds? Reducing federal funds without greater flexibility forces states to cut other programs, increase revenue, or some combination of the two. Cutting funds without granting greater flexibility amounts to shifting the federal deficit onto the states.

Since the statement’s release, it has gotten considerable news coverage, including a Reuters article in The Chicago Tribune.

Earlier this week the White House released numbers on how sequestration will impact the country on a state-by-state basis. The Federal Funds Information for the States (FFIS) organization also has state-by-state breakdowns.

Full- or Part-Time Legislature: Which is Better?

By Karl Kurtz

That's a question I get all the time when I speak to groups, both inside and outside of state capitols, about American legislatures. A recent magazine article featuring my categorization of legislatures as "professionalized," "hybrid" and "citizen" has generated several recent inquiries about which type of legislature is better.

I have an answer to this question, but first a few words about terminology. "Full-" and "part-time" are the common phrases that most people use to differentiate the operations of state legislatures. Political scientists have a fancier term, "professionalization," which measures not only the amount of time that legislators spend on the job but also the compensation of legislators and the number of staff working for the legislature. Professionalization is the concept that I have used to create the categories of legislatures.

The concept of legislative professionalization is designed to measure the capacity of legislatures and legislators to make policy decisions. Capacity, though, does not necessarily mean performance. A legislature with high capacity can perform poorly (Congress being an example), while legislatures with low capacity can perform at high levels.

It's also important to note that the policy-making capacity of a legislature (professionalization) is only one value among others that legislators and voters may set store by when they make decisions about the resources that they provide to their state legislature. One value that might conflict with increasing the capacity of legislatures might be public views about the appropriate scale and cost of state government. A second might be a desire to be governed by citizen legislators who spend most of their lives living and working in their local communities. Like the legendary Roman leader Cincinnatus, who left his farm to fight a war but returned to the plow when the war was over, citizen legislators go to the capitol to legislate for a few months but then return to their home towns.

All of this leads to my answer to the question: Neither one is necessarily better. I believe that the principal goal should be to have a legislature that is an independent and coequal branch of government, able effectively to represent the views of constituents, pass laws, and balance the power of the executive. Different legislatures with different levels of professionalization can accomplish these goals. Each state needs to choose the level of resources (compensation, time and staff) that allows them to meet these goals, within the context of their state's culture, size, complexity and values about government.

I will say, though, that the larger population states that are more socially complex and have necessarily large executive branches are more likely to need greater capacity in order for their legislature to be an independent and coequal branch of government. In other words, to represent its fairly homogenous population of half a million people effectively, Wyoming may not need California's full-time legislators, who are paid close to $100,000 a year and have a staff of more than 2,000 to help govern a state of 38 million people. But Wyoming's citizen legislature, which meets two months of the year, pays its members $12,000 and has a staff of about 40, would find it hard effectively to balance the power of the executive in a state as large and complex as California.

And indeed, that is the path that most states have taken in building the capacity of their legislatures. With only a very few exceptions the states that have the most professionalized legislatures have the largest populations, and the citizen legislatures are in the smallest population states. The hybrid legislatures are in-between, mostly in the medium population states.

Building on a table that appears in Peverill Squire and Gary Moncrief, State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes, here is a summary of the implications of the two extreme levels of professionalization, incorporating some values other than policymaking capacity. The middle column of this table is adapted from Squire and Moncrief's book; the right column is my summary of qualities associated with citizen legislatures (click to enlarge).

The States and the State of the Union

By Jon Kuhl

Throughout President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, he touched on several policy areas where NCSL has played an active role in advancing the interests of the states. The president also spoke about a number of areas where states have led the way. Below are excerpts from the president’s speech followed by information on how NCSL has been active on the issue and information summarizing state action on the issue.

NCSL is pleased to note that both President Obama and Senator Marco Rubio, who gave the Republican response, are former state legislators. President Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 until 2004, and Senator Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000 to 2009. During his last two years in the Florida House, Senator Rubio served as Speaker.

Immigration

Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants.  And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my Administration has already made – putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years. 

Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally. 

And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.

In other words, we know what needs to be done.  As we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts.  Now let’s get this done.  Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.

As a result of the federal government’s inaction on this issue, states have been forced to pick up the tab and responsibility. In the last five years, states have considered thousands of bills related to immigration – over 2,500 in the last two years alone. States have a stake in the outcome of the immigration debate and through NCSL are asking Congress to join with them in supporting comprehensive immigration reform that includes assistance to states for the multitude of services they provide for immigrants.

On Jan. 28, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, referred to as the “gang of eight,” unveiled a four-page “framework” for comprehensive immigration reform legislation, to be introduced in late-March. Since then, NCSL’s Washington office has met with the offices of several of the eight senators and is working to ensure that states are seen as important stakeholders in the process.

High-Quality Preschool

Trent Lott and Byron Dorgan Lobby for Bipartisanship in Washington

By Alex Fitsimmons

Former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have been on opposite sides of many political skirmishes over the years. But the senators joined forces Friday to fight for a cause they can both support: bipartisanship.

Addressing a group of more than 200 legislators and legislative staff at the plenary session of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ (NCSL) Fall Forum in Washington, D.C., Lott and Dorgan stressed the importance of reaching across the aisle to address a wide range of issues, from the fiscal cliff to energy reform.

Describing himself as an “incurable optimist,” the former Senate Majority Leader predicted Washington would strike a short-term deal to avert the fiscal cliff, a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect at the end of the year. 

"I believe they will get an agreement," said Lott. "It will be minimal. It will be a long punt."

Lott and Dorgan, who co-chair the Energy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), endorsed an “all of the above” approach to energy reform. Each emphasized different aspects of energy policy – Lott pushed for more oil, natural gas, and coal, while Dorgan talked up renewables – but they both recognized the need for a balanced plan that borrows the best ideas from all sides.

“This economic engine that makes things possible in America is fueled by energy,” said Dorgan, adding that the BPC plans to unveil its comprehensive energy strategy this winter.

Taking questions from the audience, the pair identified numerous issues ripe for bipartisan compromise, including tax reform and filibuster reform. On tax reform, Lott believes Congress could tackle the issue by the end of 2013. On the filibuster, both agreed that current Senate rules foster discord, though they urged Congress to be circumspect in making any changes.

 “The lubricant of democracy is compromise,” said Dorgan.

State Legislators Take to Capitol Hill to Push for Marketplace Fairness Act

By Jon Kuhl

Hundreds of state legislators from across the country gathered on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby for the Marketplace Fairness Act. The lobbying day took place as part of the 2012 NCSL Fall Forum in Washington, D.C.

While on Capitol Hill, Marketplace Fairness Act sponsors Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.),Congressman Steve Womack (R-Ark.), and Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vt.) spoke to state lawmakers before the legislators disembarked to meet with their own members of Congress. Included in the meetings on Capitol Hill, state legislators met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-Ken.).

It is estimated that by 2012, state and local governments will lose at least $ 23.3 billion annually in uncollected sales taxes from out-of-state sales, with over $11.3 billion alone from online sales. As electronic commerce continues to grow so will the loss to state and local revenues.

 NCSL has long been a supporting force behind the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Heading to the Hill? State Legislators Running for Congress in 2012

By Alex Fitzsimmons

Every two years, hundreds of current and former state legislators run for U.S. Congress. Most are incumbents running for reelection, but some are seeking a seat for the first time.

With the election around the corner, NCSL compiled a comprehensive list of every candidate for Congress who has served in a state legislature.  In total, 305 current and former state legislators are running for Congress in 2012.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of these candidates (272) are seeking a House seat, while the remaining 33 are running for Senate. Of the 272 House candidates, 73 are not currently in Congress. In 19 House races, both candidates have state legislative experience. Fifteen of these races pit an incumbent against a challenger, while the other four feature two candidates vying for an open seat.

On the Senate side, former state legislators are running in 24 of the 33 races. In nine of the races, both candidates have state legislative experience. But unlike the House, where more than 70 percent of the candidates are incumbents, 60 percent (20 of 33) of the former state legislators running for the upper chamber are not sitting senators.

In addition, eight current House members with previous state legislative experience are running for the Senate in 2012. Think you can name them all? If not, here’s the list: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.), Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.).

As is the case every cycle, Congress is losing a number of former state legislators to retirement.  Three  senators – Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) – and 21 House members will not be returning to Washington when the new Congress is sworn in. There are currently 42 former state legislators serving in the U.S. Senate, and 228 serving in the U.S. House.

Stay tuned for updates after the election for a complete list of current and former state legislators who will comprise the 113^th Congress. Also, check out NCSL's StateVote page on election night for up-to-the-minute state election results. Covering 280 federal races and more than 6,000 state races, NCSL is the definitive source for state elections.

Book Review: The Evolution of American Legislatures

by Karl Kurtz

...[T]he original state legislatures were the models for the Congress created by the Constitution. It is true that several of the most influenctial voices in the writing of the Constitution disparaged the existing state legislatures. Yet, in every elemental characteristic--number and name of houses and the relationship between them, the legislatures's ability to name its own leaders and adopt its own rules, and the power of the executive veto--the Congress under the Constitution closely resembled the original state legislatures. It bore no relationship at all to the Congress that existed under the Articles of Confederation, which was a unicameral chamber that fused legislative, executive and judicial powers, and granted each state, not each legislator, a vote....

This is a provocative paragraph from the introduction to University of Missouri Prof. Peverill Squire's new book, The Evolution of American Legislatures: Colonies, Territories, and States, 1619-2009.  Squire goes on from this teaser to summarize two evolutionary lines of legislatures in the United States--one that was highly successful and adaptive and the other that was not--in this schematic drawing.

Evolutionary Line 1 encapsulates Squire's compelling case that the 13 colonial legislatures, themselves highly original institutions, shaped and influenced the Constitutional Congress and that these two models together evolved into the territorial legislatures and their successors, the state legislatures. Each of the boxes in this chart receives detailed analysis in Squire's book.

Historians, political scientists and serious legislative junkies will love this book. Drawing on mountains of obscure primary and secondary sources and a comprehensive review of secondary sources (the bibliography is 70 pages in length), it covers not only our modern 51 American legislatures but an approximately equal number of colonial, confederal, territorial, and even the most arcane provisional legislatures. There is no other comparable scholarly work that looks at institutional change in American legislatures on such a grand scale. It is impressive in both its broad brush strokes and its convincing detail.

This is primarily a scholarly work, but Chapter 7, "The Professionalizing of Legislatures Since 1900," should be required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the institutional characteristics of our state legislatures today.

Immigration Bills Down, But Expected To Climb After Supreme Court Ruling

by Alex Fitzsimmons

Over the last few years, immigration has been one of the hottest topics in state legislatures across the country. But a new report from NCSL’s Immigrant Policy Project reveals a 44 percent decrease in the number of immigration related bills introduced from this time last year.

There are several explanations for the drop-off. First, five states that had legislative sessions in 2011 did not go into session this year, accounting for approximately one-third of the decrease.  Other reasons for the decrease include states’ focus on closing budget gaps and redistricting, and the fact that some states had sufficiently dealt with immigration issues in 2011. States are also anxiously awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States for guidance on how to proceed.

“There has been a drop-off from the peak we’ve seen over the last four years, but there is still significant interest in the states” said Ann Morse, Program Director of NCSL’s Immigrant Policy Project. “I anticipate states will re-enter the field and respond after the Supreme Court ruling.”

According to the report, 865 bills and resolutions relating to immigrants and refugees were introduced in 45 state legislatures and the District of Columbia in the first quarter of 2012. This number represents a 44 percent decrease from this point last year, when 1,538 bills were introduced. Bill enactments also dropped 30 percent, with 98 total bills and resolutions being adopted in the first quarter of 2012.

Although the report found that law enforcement (125) and employment (119) were the top areas of interest for the first quarter of 2012, states had proposed 267 of the former and 279 of the latter by this time last year. That’s a drop of 55 and 57 percent, respectively.

Examples of enacted legislation include a bill in Indiana (SB 262) that makes it illegal to knowingly transport or harbor an illegal alien, making it a Class D felony if more than nine people are involved. In Utah, HB 97 adds human trafficking, human smuggling and aggravated human trafficking to the list of offenses that can constitute racketeering, provided the offenses are conducted as a pattern of unlawful activity.

This report examines state legislation introduced in 2012 and provides examples of enacted laws and adopted resolutions. In August, NCSL will release another report summarizing in detail all enacted legislation from January through June. The December year-end report summarizes all laws and resolutions enacted, and highlights examples of new laws and trends.

Congress Kicks Can on Transportation, Another 3 Month Extension

What it Means for States

By Jon Kuhl

On Thursday, March 29, the House and Senate agreed to kick the can down the road and give themselves a three-month extension before agreeing on a longer-term transportation bill. This latest deal marks the ninth such extension since the previous transportation law expired in 2009.

 

In a short video interview, NCSL Committee Director Ben Husch discusses what this means for states, and how likely a more permanent solution may be in the midst of an election year.