The Thicket at State Legislatures

Not Even a Record for a Deliberative Body Since Wisconsin in the Age of Eisenhower

by Karl Kurtz

I enjoy reading Gail Collins in The New York Times as much as I do any columnist, not because I always agree with her but because of her clever and engaging prose.  Here's a recent example in a column last weekend, "Putting the Fond in Farewell."

Nowhere is the need for the graceful exit more apparent than in our politics. This week Senator Robert Byrd turned 92. He has been in office for more than 50 years. That’s an all-time record for Congress. In fact, it is probably a record for every deliberative body since Athens in the Age of Pericles.

That's a marvelous turn of phrase, but unfortunately, Ms. Collins, it's not even a record for a deliberative body since Wisconsin in the age of Eisenhower.  Sen. Byrd was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1958, two years after Sen. Fred Risser (photo) was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly.  A Democrat from Madison, Risser fought the tide of the landslide reelection of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. Risser was elected to the Wisconsin Senate in 1962 and has been serving there ever since.

A nit-picker could say that Byrd is the longest-serving in the same chamber of a "deliberative body" (compared to Risser who has served in two different chambers in the same state legislature), but we would suggest caution in making that claim.  NCSL has pretty good knowledge of records for length of service by state legislators since the 20th century, but we can't track earlier periods in American history. 

And for an international perspective, check out "Longest Serving Legislator in the World? Not" about Chaudharry Prem Singh, who was elected to the Delhi Legislative Assembly in the same year that Sen. Byrd was elected to the U.S. Senate.  We don't know what month Chaudharry was elected, but the odds are that it was earlier than Byrd's November 2008 election and that he talk office before Byrd on Jan. 3, 1959.

Would you Let the KKK into your Town Hall Meeting?

by Karl Kurtz

Lee Hamilton has another excellent Commentary on Congress, "Whatever their Tone, We Need Town Hall Meetings."  It begins:

Years ago, when I was still in Congress, I pulled up one day to address a public meeting in a remote and very rural part of Indiana. The sheriff, a friend of mine, met me outside the small volunteer fire house where I was to speak. "The Ku Klux Klan is here in full regalia," he told me. "If you'd like, I'll keep them out of your meeting."

For just a second, I'll confess, I weighed his offer. But I was not in the business of trying to keep constituents out of public gatherings — even if they were in the KKK. No, I told my friend, the Klansmen could come in, as long as they removed their hoods. There's no place for anonymity in a public meeting, I said.

And so about twenty-five of them — hoodless — marched down the aisle made by the rickety folding chairs set up in the tiny firehouse and took their places in the front. Was this or was this not a Christian nation, they demanded. And what did I think about Jewish influence in Hollywood and on the media? I responded calmly, but their persistent overtones of anti-Semitism wore out the audience's patience. Eventually they left, and the meeting continued.

And concludes:

Over my years in Congress, I conducted hundreds, if not thousands, of town-hall meetings. Almost every time I came away with the feeling that this was precisely what I was meant to be doing — engaging with my constituents in a small part of the dialogue of democracy. Just as often, these meetings reinforced my confidence in the fairness, decency and judgment of the American people.

I've been in Algeria for the last week with a team of legislators and staff, leading a couple of workshops for Algerian legislators.  One of our topics was citizen engagement and  constituent communication. We emphasized the importance of town hall meetings and talked about how to set them up.  We have a great team here, consisting of North Dakota Rep. Rae Ann Kelsch, New Jersey Assemblymember Upendra Chivikula, Minnesota Senate legislative counsel Peter Wattson, Florida policy research director Gary Vanlandingham, and NCSL's Christy Delafield.  They did a great job of carrying Lee Hamilton's point, but after reading his commentary, I wished that he had been here with us to tell this story.

See our previous postings in The Thicket about town hall meetings starting with "Town Hall Meetings: Building Trust Online."

Rain in Death Valley, Party Voting in California, Congress and Tiddlywinks

by Karl Kurtz

It's more likely to rain in Death Valley on any given day than it is for a California legislator to vote in opposition to the majority of his or her party on any given bill....

That's the clever lead on a Sacramento Bee story on the extent of party-line voting by members of the California Legislature.  The story analyzes nearly 200,000 (!) individual votes by senators and Assembly members in committee and on the floor to date in the 2009 legislative session, concluding that majority party Democrats voted against the majority of their own party only 1 percent of the time and minority Republicans about 4 percent.  The story has lots of cool graphics and interactive maps.

For the non-California reader, the most interesting thing was this quote:

"California is by far the most polarized state legislature" in the nation, said professor Boris Shor, with the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, who recently published a study on the ideological composition of legislatures. "California makes the U.S. Congress look like tiddlywinks."

I searched for Shor's study and found an unpublished paper "All Together Now: Putting Congress, State Legislatures, and Individuals in a Common Ideological Space."  Shor's conclusion about California is based not on roll call votes but "on 10 years (1996-2006) of the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) administered by Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan organization that disseminates information on campaigning [state legislators and members of Congress] to the public at large."

On p. 17 of Shor's paper are two charts that show the ideological polarization of all 50 state legislatures.  On his scale the 5 most polarized legislatures in the United States are California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Hawaii.  The 5 with the least ideological division between the parties are Idaho, Alaska, Utah, South Dakota and South Carolina. 

The data appear to show that the more liberal states in the country have wide differences between the political parties in the legislature, while the more conservative ones have relatively small differences between Republicans and Democrats.  This does not seem surprising to a more casual observer of state legislative politics, but the data and detail in Shor's paper are interesting and reveal a few surprises (e.g., why are those Ohio Democrats relatively right of their national party scores and what about those apparently leftward leaning--relatively--Wyoming Republicans?) 

Warning: the paper is not for those who are statistically challenged or methodologically faint of heart.

Fire Alarms and Police Patrols: Two Approaches to Legislative Oversight

by Karl Kurtz

American legislatures don't devote enough time or attention to legislative oversight. That's a nearly universal complaint about both Congress and state legislatures. Legislative surveillance and control of the executive branch is hard work, not very rewarding and not something that legislators can easily take credit for, say the critics by way of explanation for the neglect of this function.

But that's a one-dimensional view of legislative oversight, according to University of California Berkeley Professor Bruce Cain in testimony before California Assembly and Senate select committees on improving state government last week. Bruce was drawing on a distinction between police patrol oversight and fire alarm oversight, terms coined in the 1980s by political scientists Matthew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz.

Police patrol oversight, like its namesake, is the routine work of "patrolling" the executive branch looking for problems in program implementation. It is usually centralized in a legislature in an audit or program review committee with a staff agency that evaluates the performance of executive agencies. It relies on formal committee hearings on agency operations and on interim studies and reports on legislative performance. Police patrol oversight is usually initiated by the legislature and tends to be formal and systematic.

Fire alarm oversight of executive programs by legislatures occurs when interest groups complain about how programs are administered, the media expose programmatic waste or abuse, or constituents report problems with government services that reveal flaws in program design or implementation. It is highly decentralized, relies on outside actors to "sound an alarm", and is less than systematic.

Town Hall Meetings: Building Trust Online

by Pam Greenberg

Participants in a series of online town hall meetings with members of Congress reported significantly improved trust, agreement, and satisfaction with government.  These online meetings, according to a new report by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF)  and a team of academic partners, also found that Internet town hall meetings improved constituents’ approval ratings of members of Congress and increased their probability of voting for the member.   

CMF conducted most of the online town hall meetings with small groups of 15-25 constituents, but one with a group of nearly 200 constituents.  The sessions involved a moderator and a Member of Congress who spoke to constituents via Internet audio.  The constituents posed written questions in real time during the meetings. 

The sessions, conducted with a diverse group of citizens, resulted in hundreds of online questions contributing to high quality discussions about immigration and detainee policy issues. The sessions were extremely popular with constituents—96 percent said they would like to be included in similar events in the future. 

State lawmakers in Washington have held many online town hall meetings in recent years, and legislators in California and Virginia have also held internet or web dialogues with citizens. For another take, see "What's Going on with Town Hall Meetings?"

Photo credit: Eliot Kamenitz, The Times-Picayune archive in nola.com

New Surveys Provide Snapshot of Legislators' Use of Social Media

by Pam Greenberg

Tracking the number of legislators using social media tools seems a daunting task.  NCSL's chart lists legislative caucuses and agencies using these sites, and Karl Kurtz has previously blogged about legislators who tweet.  Several recent surveys, however, are providing a bit more data about the popularity of these sites among lawmakers. 

More than half of Illinois Senators and close to half of House members are using the social media site Facebook, according to a recent detailed survey by Chicago public relations firm Kathy Schaeffer & Associates, Inc.  The detailed results show a smaller number using Twitter, YouTube, or LinkedIn, the business-oriented social networking site.

A survey earlier in 2009, by the Illinois Technology Partnership (ITP), asked Illinois legislators if they used any social networking sites.  About 20 percent responded, and of those, about 30 percent indicated they frequently use these sites, and about nineteen percent said they use them occasionally. Twenty-five percent indicated they did not use social media, but were interested to learn more, but another 25 percent said social networking does not interest them.

What Federal Policies and Programs Can Help States Improve College Completion?

by Brenda Bautsch

President Barack Obama recently announced his goal of having the United States become number one in the world in terms of the number of adults with postsecondary degrees. This is a spot the United States once held, but in today's global economy, has slipped away.

The topic of college completion was the focus of the 6th annual Higher Education Institute in Denver, Colorado. The meeting was held by the National Conference of State Legislatures and allowed legislators from across the country the opportunity to come and share what their state is doing in terms of boosting higher education graduation rates.

Bob Shireman, Deputy Under Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, spoke to lawmakers about what the federal government is doing today, and what it plans to do in the future, to improve college access and success for everyone.

In this podcast, I was able to sit down with Deputy Under Secretary Shireman and talk to him about federal government action to secure loans and grants for college students and some upcoming reform that could make a postsecondary education more affordable. Shireman also talks about the higher education bill that Congress is working on, and how it could bolster college success.

Listen to this podcast (4:53) and our previous podcast on college completion rates with David Longanecker.

 

Making Data (and Words) Fun

by Gene Rose

Policymakers deal with data on a daily basis. Every now and then, someone applies some creativity to that data and produces a fun and engaging product. A good example of this is a site called Congress Speaks.

A design firm named Periscopic got access to all the words spoken by members of 110th Congress (2007-2008).  Through a clever use of animation, design and interactive features, the company created a thoroughly captivating site that can be used for simple enjoyment or political analysis.

Thanks to the site, I know that former NCSL President Jim Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional district, spoke 23,141 words on the floor of the U.S. House. Former Florida House Speaker Tom Feeney, who now represents Florida's 24th Congressional district, spoke 11,710 words.

Imagine the match-ups you can create: Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton; John McCain vs. Ronald Paul; Rahm Emanuel vs. Nancy Pelosi; and the state of California vs. the state of New York.

The site gives you not only the word count, but also displays the ranking on where each individual (or state) ranks comparatively. The detail box that pops up also provides information on voting records, including how many times they voted "yes" or "no" and how often they voted with their own party.

My favorite part is the tag cloud, which gives a visual representation on what words the Congressman (or state) used the most. For Rep. Costa, "California" and "Fresno" were the two most used words in his remarks, while also frequently mentioning crime, community and energy. For Rep. Feeney, the top two were "space" and "NASA," along with research, science and world. Their word choices reflects the districts they represent and the concerns of their constituents.

The site is a good lesson for legislatures, legislators and public information officers who are seeking ways to engage their citizens. By taking some fairly simple data, Periscopic has given the public an engaging tool to gain some insight to members of Congress.

Take a spin on the site. Let us know your favorite matchups and what you like about the site. And see if you can discover who spoke the most words.

The Bigger Picture

by Brian Weberg

Every now and then I read something that I want to share with my children.  Thomas Friedman's recent op-ed expressing his concerns about the current nature of the American political scene is one such item.  It doesn't matter which side of the political fence you stand on--or if you work hard to straddle that fence trying to understand and appreciate every point of view--Mr. Friedman's observations summarize trends in American politics that we should all ponder and take into account.  For me, he has tapped into something I have felt in my bones, and helped put those feelings into more constructive context.  Here is an excerpt:

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.

I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.

Friedman causes me to think about the role of states and state legislatures in addressing the "factors" he finds troublesome.  For example, if gerrymandering is a culprit in "what is happening to American politics," then clearly the states are front and center in resolving that issue.  But of course, it's not at all a simple matter. The national political parties and their complicit media outlets have extended their reach aggressively into what were once largely state and local political prerogatives and choices.  Local voices and the civility of the town hall meeting are overwhelmed and perverted by national media cattle calls to action and obstruction by people and interests on both sides of the political fence who have no real connection to the needs and realities on main street. 

If the states are the laboratories of democracy in America, then maybe their leaders and institutions need to stand stronger against the trends identified by Friedman.  The states are, and always have been, the source of new and innovative policy solutions for America.  Perhaps they also must be bulwarks against a creeping over-simplification of complex issues, the over-manipulation of voting district boundaries, the corrosive costs of continuous political campaigning and a coarsening political discourse that collectively act to discourage acts of thoughtful citizenship and paralyze our ability to solve critical social problems. 

Movies Reveal Public Perceptions of Congress

by Karl Kurtz

From The Dirksen Congressional Center comes a new lesson plan on "The Public's View of Congress: A Study in Contrast Through Film," prepared by René M. Lafayette, Northbridge High School, Whitinsville, MA. 

The four films selected to share for comparison begin with the 1939 classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (released approximately 45 days after the start of World War II), then the 1972 film The Candidate, followed seven years later by The Seduction of Joe Tynan and finally the 1996 documentary A Perfect Candidate. The common theme that runs throughout the 57 years spanning the oldest film to the most recent is, in a word, “disappointment.”

Hollywood’s portrayal of our Federal lawmakers seems to validate the cynical view most Americans have about Congress. Although not used in this lesson, even the most recent (2007) film which centered on a Member of Congress (Charlie Wilson’s War) presents the viewer with mixed, at best, signals about the film’s “hero” (a hard-drinking, drug-using, womanizing Texas Democrat). Wilson as portrayed by Tom Hanks, is as much at ease navigating through the interagency intrigues of the Central Intelligence Agency as he is nude in a Las Vegas hot tub with equally non-attired strippers/escorts in the film’s opening scene. Enough said?

There is always great interest in the 1933 classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Many high school juniors and seniors find Stewart’s character believable. They may also appreciate a simpler lifestyle and story line. In any event, all four films include dashed innocence or naiveté lost when faced with fundamental moral or ethical challenges. There is usually considerable discussion after a film’s viewing as to why anyone would want to enter public life. Point out the alternatives to such a position.

For more about how movies portray American politics, see "Videos on State Politics" and other links in that posting.