The Thicket at State Legislatures

"A Symptom of True Political Illness"

by Karl Kurtz

Lee Hamilton, the former member of Congress who directs the Center on Congress at Indiana University, has a hard-hitting new commentary, "A Disastrous Budget Process" in which he takes Congress to task for its ongoing failure to complete the appropriations process.  Among other things, he says:

Congress has lost the institutional ability to follow an orderly budget process. As a result it has undermined its own committees, shunted most of its members to the policy sidelines, failed to maintain the constitutional balance of powers, condemned the people who administer federal programs to season after season of uncertainty, and eroded the consensus–building, transparency, and accountability that keep our democracy vital....

There is a simple solution to all this. It's called “the regular order.” For many years, Congress took up individual appropriations bills, debated them, and passed them on time. That process evolved for a reason: It safeguarded public discourse, enhanced congressional oversight, and buttressed the vital role Congress plays in forging consensus among diverse regions and constituencies.

If Congress wants to remain relevant and legitimate in these challenging times, it can start by reviving its disciplined approach to budgeting.

What Constitutes Experience?

by Karl Kurtz

Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing, has an interesting guest column in Newsweek entitled "Are You Experienced: Why a U.S. Senator might not trump a state legislator" in which he argues that Sen. Barack Obama's experience as a state legislator counts for at least as much as Sen. John McCain's (or Sen. Hillary Clinton's) tenure in the Senate.  His point is that state legislators get much more in-depth policy experience than U.S. senators who "are, virtually by the nature of the job, gadflies", because the state lawmakers have to become experts and negotiators themselves rather than relying on staff to do it for them.

Rather than suggesting that this state legislative experience is a reason to support Obama over McCain (or vice versa), Ehrenhalt concludes that "experience itself is a slippery commodity to measure—that there is no easy way to guess what sort of political career is ideal for a president...."

This article resonated with me not only because of my institutional bias toward the value of state legislatures but also because I have often wondered during this campaign about the claims and counter-claims of  "experience" among Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama.  But I want to add a couple of thoughts that elaborate on Ehrenhalt's conclusion about the complexity of determining what constitutes good experience. 

What Would Happen if Congress were Abolished?

by Karl Kurtz

In our work on the Trust for Representative Democracy we are always looking for creative ways to make the point that representative democracy works, not without flaws but better than any conceivable alternative.  One of the ideas that we have toyed with is to try to show what life would be like without legislatures, but we haven't quite come up with the way to do it.

In the process of searching for old documentaries on government, my colleague Gene Rose found a 1947 Coronet Instructional film, "The Powers of Congress."  This 10 minute video features a character, Charles Bentley, who complains bitterly about the burdens that the Congress has placed on him and suggests that it should be abolished.  He then falls asleep and has a dream about all the dreadful things that would happen if there were no Congress (or at least no federal government).  The dream is cleverly produced, complete with marvelous bubbles floating across the screen in a manner that seems way before its time.  When Bentley awakens from the dream, he has a new appreciation for the work of Congress and composes a speech for his service club on the subject. 

This last third of the video in praise of Congress turns pedantic in its approach, but it doesn't wipe out the campiness and fun of the first two-thirds.  You'll have fun watching it.

People Turn to the Internet to Reach Lawmakers

by Pam Greenberg

The Internet has become the primary source for learning about and communicating with Congress, according to research recently released by the Congressional Management Foundation.  And although Internet users want to hear from their U.S. Senators and Representatives, often they don't recall receiving a response to their communications, they are dissatisfied with the response they receive, or they feel members don't care about what they say.  Those surveyed think that information they receive from organizations they are affiliated with is more informative and trustworthy than information they receive from members of Congress. 

So, while more than 100 million Americans contacted Congress in the last five years (more than twice the rate contacting Congress in 2004), the report concludes that "it seems less actual communication is occurring.”

The report is disheartening in many ways, but it provides specific and concrete suggestions about ways lawmakers at all levels can better meet constituents' expectations.  A sampling of just a few:

• inviting citizens to take action through e-newsletters, town hall meetings and surveys
• reaching out to advocacy organizations that generate issue campaigns
• keeping citizens informed about policy issues
• changing the tone of responses to constituent communications.

The report is about congressional communications, but much of it is also applicable to state legislatures.

Safire's Political Dictionary

by Karl Kurtz

The new 2008 edition of William Safire's Political Dictionary, first published in 1968, is a great resource for political junkies--legislative or otherwise--and just plain fun reading.  Here are three things I learned from a randomly selected page:

• hizzoner--This jocular word/phrase likely to be applied to any big city mayor first became popular in New York in reference to Fiorello H. La Guardia.  Chicago added its own twist when Mayor Richard Daley (the first one) came to be called "Hizzoner duh Mare."
• Hobson's choice--I had always thought that this referred to any difficult political choice involving a tradeoff and that it was probably derived from some obscure philosopher.  But no, Safire says that Hobson's choice in politics only refers to a situation in which you vote for one candidate or do not vote at all and that it is improper to use it to refer to a general political dilemma.  And it is derived not from philosophy but from a 16th century stable owner in London, Tobias Hobson, who required that all customers who wanted a horse could take only the one closest to the stable door.  By this means he could assure equal use of each horse.  "From whence it became a proverb, when what ought to be your election was forced upon you, to say Hobson's Choice," in the words of Sir Richard Steele in The Spectator, No. 509.

The Well of the House

by Karl Kurtz

The information request of the day at NCSL is, What is the origin of "the well of the house?"  Legislative junkies know that the "well" is a term that many legislatures use for the area in front of the speaker's rostrum from which members address the chamber, as shown in this photo of the U.S. House of Representatives.  (Some senates also refer to the well but less often than houses, because the smaller size of senates means that members often speak from their own desks.)  But where does the term come from?

I began researching this issue by looking in dictionaries. Interestingly, none of the unabridged dictionaries that I checked give a definition of "well" that relates to a legislative chamber.  Googling "the well of the house" generates lots of references to the term, including a nice description and photo from Arkansas and this musical note from Pennsylvania: "Leopold Stokowski once conducted the Philadelphia Orchestra from the well of the House."  But Google doesn't produce an online dictionary definition of "well" that mentions legislative chambers, much less any clues as to its derivation.

The closest thing to a dictionary definition of "well" that relates to legislatures comes from the Oxford English Dictionary (the full version that I have at home and have to read with a magnifying glass, not the online compact version), which provides one meaning of the word as "The space on the floor of a law court (between the judge's bench and the last row of seats occupied by counsel) where the solicitors sit."  That's pretty close to the legislative version of "well."

I consulted with John Phelps, former clerk of the Florida House, and Alfred (Butch) Speer, clerk of the Louisiana House, about this question.  Together we have some ideas but no definitive answer to the question.  John said that he had once asked the U.S. Architect of the Capitol this question and was told that they had nothing in their files on the origin of the term.  So here is our speculation.

The Bella Abzug Effect

by Karl Kurtz

My last post about the sometimes random nature of legislative management and policy decisions reminds me of an anecdote from my congressional experience.  In 1970-71, fresh out of graduate school, I was one of about six political scientists, a similar number of journalists, and 20 or so federal executive branch employees who were selected to be Congressional Fellows of the American Political Science Association. We all worked for four months each in the House and the Senate, serving as professional staff for either a member or a committee.

I worked for Rep. Frank Thompson, Jr. from Trenton, New Jersey, who liked to be called "Thompy". He was a major player in the House on labor, education and cultural issues.  An authorized (pre-Abscam) biography of him is entitled Liberal Leader in the House.  He loved having a Congressional Fellow every year, even installing those of us who got this choice assignment at a small table in his own office, where we were privy to virtually everything that went on.  He was a marvelous raconteur and liked having a ready audience at all times.

One day there was a controversial issue before the House.  As the staff person assigned to the issue (I don't remember what it was), I briefed Thompy on it before he left for the floor.  While it was a difficult issue, it had clear liberal and conservative sides, and I assumed that he would vote "aye" on the liberal side.  When he returned to the office, I asked him how he had voted.

"I voted 'no'," he said.

Surprised, I blurted out, "Why did you do that?"

"Because that damned Bella Abzug got up and made a speech in favor of it.  She makes me so mad with her holier-than-thou speeches that I decided to vote against it!," he exploded.

Tell us Something we don't Already Know

A quote without comment (other than our headline) from an AP story that appeared yesterday in the Casper Star Tribune:

CHEYENNE (AP) -- Congress could stand to learn a few things from the Wyoming Legislature about how to handle business, Sen. John Barrasso told state lawmakers.

Barrasso, a Wyoming state senator before his appointment of the U.S. Senate last year, addressed both the state House and Senate on Tuesday.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal appointed Barrasso, R-Wyo., last year following the death of Republican Sen. Craig Thomas. Barrasso is running to retain his Senate seat this fall and has yet to draw a Democratic opponent.

Barrasso drew standing ovations in both legislative chambers. He told lawmakers that he's kept his same cell phone number and still regularly checks his old state Senate e-mail account, although he said that he now pays for it himself.

"The Wyoming Legislature is absolutely great preparation for serving in the United States Senate," Barrasso said in his address to the House.

"There are some profound differences, but Wyoming does it better than they do in Washington," he said.

Barrasso noted that the state Legislature has bills limited to single topics, allows line-item vetoes by the governor and requires that the state maintain a balanced budget. He said Congress should pay attention to all those concepts.

Clemens, Congress and the Media

by Gene Rose

Is the use of steroids by major league baseball players an important national issue or one that simply allows members of Congress to grandstand for the television cameras? The public relations battle between pitcher Roger Clemens and his trainer is taking center stage in Congress and there appears to be a lot of hand-wringing on whether the issue deserves to be a Capitol Hill headliner.

Poynter's Al Tompkins has a good column on the debate today with some thoughtful commentary on both sides of the issue. Washington Post's Tony Kornheiser, who hosts one of the few programs I insist on watching daily ("Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN), has said on the show recently on more than one occasion that Congress has more important things to worry about, such as the war in Iraq.

I always cringe when I hear statments like that. While I like and respect Tony -- and agree with him and others that there are more important things in the world to worry about -- comments like this ignore a critical fact of life: the media has decided it's news.

The definition of news has changed dramatically in recent years and, quite frankly, the media has decided this story has legs and, like covering Britney Spears, will run on this story as long as there is a perceived high level of public interest. Will the media be covering today's U.S. Senate hearings on the foreclosures of elderly homeowners or the President's proposed budget for Veteran's affairs with the same breathless intensity? Try to find it in your morning newspaper or the evening news tonight.

While I am the last person to say that there aren't people on Capitol Hill who are hoping to use this story for political gain, the fact is that without the media, there would be no story. Rather than criticizing Congress for holding hearings on this issue, I think a fairer question to debate is whether the media has more important news to cover.

NCSL Leaders Participate in State of the Union

by Karl Kurtz

NCSL’s immediate past president, Senator Leticia Van de Putte of Texas, has the honor of delivering the Spanish language response to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union message today.  It will be broadcast on Spanish language stations across the country.  She will do this in partnership with Kansas Governor Katherine Sebelius, who will make the English language response.

In a nice symbolic display of bipartisanship, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has invited NCSL president Donna Stone (right in photo), a Republican member of the Delaware House of Representatives, to join Sen. Van de Putte (left) in the speaker’s gallery for the State of the Union message.

Both women are thrilled, and it is an unprecedented recognition of NCSL and the role that it plays in our federal system.  Look for Rep. Stone and Sen. Van de Putte in the crowd shots and tune in on your local Spanish language station after the President’s speech.

REAL ID Without Real Debate

by Matt Sundeen

On January 11, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released the long-awaited final regulations for implementing new federal standards for state-issued driver's licenses found in the infamous REAL ID Act of 2005.  Many of the negative reactions to REAL ID, both before and after the event, focused on the enormous cost burden for states and the perceived erosion of privacy caused by the new provisions.   Many people were also concerned about the lack of process when Congress adopted the bill in the first place.  And now, the rule-making process may exacerbate this process problem by not giving state legislatures enough time to deliberate on the issue.

Last summer, I spoke about the federal REAL ID Act before the New Mexico Legislature's interim transportation study committee.  After my 20 minute presentation, the next speaker, Jim Harper of the Cato Institute, began his remarks to the legislators by saying, "Congratulations.  You have now spent more time debating REAL ID than Congress did."

Jim wasn't joking, and he was right on point.  The REAL ID Act is a big deal.  It replaced 99 years worth of state driver's license work with new federal standards.  Such a major piece of legislation should have been carefully vetted through a legislative process that included public hearings, public debate and negotiation among members of Congress. 

Instead, REAL ID was attached as an amendment to a must-pass war spending and tsunami relief bill in 2005 and moved through Congress after no hearings and no public deliberation.  It terminated a federal "negotiated rulemaking" process, passed by Congress in 2004, that had brought together numerous state and federal stakeholders to develop the best strategy for securing driver's licenses.  REAL ID also effectively ended many state driver's license security improvement efforts as state legislators and motor vehicle administrators waited for final REAL ID regulations.

[Read about how the federal regs affect state legislative deliberation after the jump.]

"Things ain't what they used to be and never were."

by Karl Kurtz

The airplane home to Denver from Washington Reagan airport last Thursday night was a "congressional special."  There were at least half a dozen current or former members of Congress on the flight from the Colorado delegation or other parts of the west.  On the jetway waiting to board the plane I asked one of them, a former member of the California Legislature, what the prospects were for Congress and the President reaching agreement on appropriations bills for the year.  He threw up his hands and said, "The leadership of both parties has lost the ability to compromise!  They're too busy trying to score political points off of each other.  I'm frustrated by it.  Some of us have talked to our leadership about it, but we don't get anyplace.  They say, 'yeah, yeah, we hear you,' and then turn around and start bashing the other guys again."

That immediately put me in mind of several other recent stories on problems of partisanship, lack of camaraderie and inability to compromise in legislatures.  I asked this member of Congress  if he had read Lee Hamilton's commentary, "Why not Try Genuine Consultation," on this very subject.  He had not seen that one, but we had both read  about a California conference featuring former legislative leaders talking about how to improve California state government, "Capitol leaders past and present: Look to the good old days."

The subhead on that Sacramento Bee story captures it fairly well: "What's missing?  Booze, backrooms and bonding, they say."  Former California legislative leaders like Willie Brown, Pete Wilson, Jim Brulte and John Burton variously lamented that the old-time social bonding of legislators of both parties at evening dinners, receptions and poker parties has fallen by the wayside under strict ethics laws and term limits.  The personal friendships that they built up at night across party lines helped them to resolve policy conflicts during the day, they said.  They also talked about the value of being able to negotiate behind closed doors in ways that are much more difficult to do today.  These leaders were echoing themes that appear in the new biography of former California Speaker Jesse Unruh.

The congressman and I parted company (he to score an upgrade in business class and I to steerage--a middle seat in the back) before we could finish talking about these stories of the "good old days."  But I have a few more thoughts to share. 

First, the Bee and the organization that sponsored the conference, the  Public Policy Institute of California, anchored this story in public approval ratings of the legislature of 34 percent (click to enlarge the chart of public opinion), which they regard as very low.  Well, I have been collecting public opinion polls about perceptions of state legislatures for 20 years, and I would say those numbers aren't bad.  Scores between 35 and 45 percent approval are fairly typical across the states and over time.  People just don't think highly of the legislative process (if they think of it at all) no matter what they do.

[Read below the jump to find out the author of the quote that titles this post.]

Hyperpartisanship, Why "Bickering" is Good, and a Memorable Former Lawmaker

by Karl Kurtz

Many of our writers for The Thicket have been traveling or otherwise occupied this week, which accounts for our relatively low number of postings.  That doesn't mean we have stopped reading, though.  Here are three interesting articles from this week for legislative junkies:

• A New York Times book review of Ronald Brownstein's new book, The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America. I must say that I hate the current fad of long descriptive subtitles like this one that are designed to shock and sell, but in this instance it seems to capture the book fairly well.  Michiko Kakutami, the reviewer, praises the book for its historical perspective comparing the "hyperpartisanship" of the Clinton and Bush administrations to the "age of bargaining" of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson eras.  Not having read the book, I wonder, as I always do on the subject of partisanship, what a longer-term historical perspective on the intense partisanship of the 19th century would tell us about the current period.  Many of today's hallmarks of partisanship--extreme rhetoric, strong party loyalty within the Congress, homogenization within the parties, and partisan media--were present in 19th century politics.  Unfortunately, I'm not a good enough historian of that period to reach any conclusions about this.
• Another of the Center on Congress at Indiana University's commentaries by its director, Lee Hamilton.  This one is on how "Debate is Good for Our System," explaining that the legislative disagreement and deliberation that the public sees as "bickering" is essential to decision-making in a democracy.  As usual, whenever I read one of Lee's commentaries, I wish I had written it myself.
• A New York Times obituary for former Arkansas Rep. Ray Smith, who died last week at age 83.  He served in the Arkansas House from 1955 to 1982, including one term as speaker (in a chamber where the speakership has been rotated every two years for a very long time).  The obituaries all focus on his lone vote against giving Gov. Orval Faubus the power to close any public schools that were forced to integrate.  But I remember him as a principal, on behalf of the Council of State Governments (of which he was the national chair at some point), in the negotiations in the mid-1970s over the merger that created the National Conference of State Legislatures and his subsequent service on the NCSL Executive Committee.  Ray loved to play the role of the southern country lawyer--and was just as sharp as that term implies.  I learned a lot from Ray, often over a class of whiskey.

Who Runs, Who Doesn't Run and the Shrinking Congress

by Karl Kurtz

Today's newspapers bring three good legislative institutional stories:

• A Sacramento Bee article, "All in the (Capitol) Family," about how legislative seats are being passed around among family members in California, in part because of term limits.  It features the odd twist of Sen. Dean Florez' mother running for her son's old Assembly seat.
• A New York Times article, "For Retiring Republicans, Several Explanations," about three Ohio Republican members of Congress--David Hobson (photo), Ralph Regula (both Hobson and Regula were "cardinals" on the appropriations committee and previously served in leadership positions in the Ohio Senate) and Deborah Pryce--who are choosing not to seek reelection in 2008.  The story talks about the unnamed reason that it's not as much fun to be in the minority than the majority.  But it doesn't mention that Democrats experienced the same problem of a large number of retirements after losing the majority in Congress in 1994.
• A New York Times "editorial observer" column by Adam Cohen, "Honey, They Shrunk the Congress," about how presidential aggressiveness and congressional timidity have diminished the power of Congress as the preeminent, first branch of government.

Poll Results: Quiz on Power to Declare War

The Thicket readers have shown that they know their Constitution.  Eighty-three percent of those who responded to the quiz question, Who has the power to declare war?, got it right by answering the Congress.  Fourteen percent said that the President has this power, and two percent each thought that the Secretary of Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff can declare war.  The poll, which was based on the posting, "Can You Pass the Citizenship Test?," was up for almost two months (apologies to regular readers who got bored with it) and drew 178 responses.

Everett Dirksen Cartoon Collection Now Available--With Lesson Plans

by Karl Kurtz

The Dirksen Congressional Center has recently published 300 cartoons of the memorable (am I showing my age?) U.S. Senate minority leader from Illinois, Everett Dirksen, on the Web, complete with lesson plans that help young people understand and interpret political cartoons.  Here's what the Center says about the collection:

Editorial cartoonists loved Everett Dirksen (1896-1969)—his position of influence as Minority Leader in the Senate (1959-69), his way with words, and, of course, his distinctive appearance. Over the years, Senator Dirksen’s staff compiled a scrapbook containing more than 300 editorial cartoons. Topics covered include Vietnam, civil rights, Republican Party politics, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, reapportionment, Taft-Hartley 14(b), school prayer, Dirksen’s recording career, Senate procedures, congressional pay, presidential appointments, and Dirksen’s legacy. Naturally, cartoonists also used these topics to depict Dirksen’s relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, with his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, and with the Supreme Court. In addition, cartoonists sent Dirksen between 50 and 60 original sketches on equally diverse topics.

Among the scores of cartoonists represented in the collection are Herblock, Gib Crockett, Hugo, Bill Mauldin, Gene Basset, Pat Oliphant, Al Capp, Wayne Stayskal, Jim Berry, Guernsey LePelley, Tom Engelhardt, Paul Conrad, and Jim Berryman. [David Levine’s sketch of Senator Dirksen on the senator’s birthday, January 4, 1966, appears at left.]

Value of Cartoons for Educational Purposes

Evan Almighty: 'Evan for Animals, Hell for Democracy

by Karl Kurtz

While on vacation last week, I went with my family to see Evan Almighty.  The movie stars Steve Carell as Evan Baxter, a television anchor in Buffalo who is elected to Congress on a slogan to "change the world."  On arriving in Washington, a naive Evan is flattered to be courted by a powerful committee chair (John Goodman) to cosponsor a major bill dealing with the management of public lands and national parks.  From the outset the committee chair--as is so often the case with the fictional portrayal of politicians--seems a bit sleazy, leading the audience to suspect that he is venal and self-serving, as he turns out to be.

Before Evan can discover this for himself, though, God (Morgan Freeman) comes to Evan and convinces him that he must pull a modern-day Noah and build an ark to save mankind and thousands of animals from a coming flood.  He tells Evan that small acts of kindness are the best way to "change the world."  After much initial resistance, Evan throws himself into the task, neglecting his job as a congressman and incurring the wrath of his patron, the committee chair.  In the end, in ways that I won't detail here and spoil the plot, the building of the ark leads to torpedoing what is revealed to be a rapacious land use bill sponsored by a corrupt, profiteering member of Congress.

I didn't much care for the movie for several reasons: an excess of Steve Carell slap/schtick, the implausibility (to a practiced eye) of many of the congressional scenes, and above all, the simplistic comparison of Evan's God-inspired many small acts of kindness to the caricature of the American legislative process presented in the film.

But my wife and two teenage children loved the show.  My wife especially liked the spectacle of the thousands of animals that came to the ark (they were terrific, I'll give her that). She reported enthusiastically that she had read an article about how the American Humane Association monitors Hollywood's film-making to ensure that no animals are mistreated and that Evan Almighty had been rated as "outstanding."  (American Humane's extraordinarily detailed review of the animals' treatment includes such juicy morsels as, "When the alpaca spits in Ed’s (Ed Helms) face and foams at the mouth, a nontoxic food starch mixed with chopped spinach was used for the “spit” makeup.")

The combination of my distaste for the portrayal of the legislative process in the movie and my wife's approval of how the animals were treated got me to thinking: If the animals can have an association that protects them from mistreatment by Hollywood, why can't someone protect American democracy from being portrayed as corrupt and dominated by evil special interests? 

Ups and Downs in Improving Congress

by Karl Kurtz

In "There's Still Much Room for Improvement in Congress," Lee Hamilton, director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University, applauds some of the changes made by the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives in the areas of oversight of the executive branch and lobbying reform but chides them for not going far enough.  He is critical of the majority's tendency to block Republicans from offering amendments to bills on the floor--a tactic that Democrats had criticized when they were in the minority:

The goal in the House — the most representative institution our nation possesses — is to create a process that is fair and that allows the nation's business to be done, while also letting the minority present an alternative policy, have it debated fully, and then see it voted up or down. The way the majority uses the rules is a basic test of that fairness; if it quashes the minority's ability ever to have its alternatives heard, it flunks.

Now, the House minority bears a share of responsibility, too. If its members are constantly playing little games to score political points, rather than developing serious policy alternatives, then it, too, shares the blame for undercutting the civility and fairness necessary for the House to work.

Good Stories from AEI's Political Report

by Karl Kurtz

At The Thicket we regularly read the monthly AEI Political Report, but we don't link to it very often because it mostly deals with presidential politics rather than our beat of state politics, federalism, and the legislative institution.  The most recent June 2007 issue, though, has a bunch of good stories that are relevant to our bailiwick.  Here are my favorites:

• A piece on Florida Governor Charlie Crist's move to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their probation and parole, including a rundown on the states that have recently taken similar steps--and the ones that haven't (p. 5 of the PDF).
• A great graphic showing the impact of the movement by states to the Feb. 5 primary election date (p. 5)
• A poll showing that the percentage of people saying that they are baseball fans has declined from 44 percent in 1997 to 37 percent in 2007 (yes, we do occasionally stray from our beat to other things that we care about)
• A link to a very good commentary by Norm Ornstein in Roll Call, assessing recent leadership performance by both Democratic and Republican leaders in the Congress.

And, for those of you who can't get enough of the premature (in my view) media orientation to the horse race aspects of the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, there's a poll (p. 1) showing that 84 percent of the public have not yet made up their minds on who to support in the presidential primaries.

How Things Get Done in a Legislature

by Karl Kurtz

Knowing that during graduate school in St. Louis I had worked on Tom Eagleton's first campaign for the U.S. Senate, our NCSL Washington office recently sent me a clipping from Roll Call with a personal reminiscence about Eagleton (who died in March of this year) by Ira Shapiro, who had worked for him in the Senate.  I particularly liked it because it captured Eagleton's personal charm and humor that I remember well.

The article also contained a marvelous story about how things get done in a legislature that I want to share here.  Unfortunately, though, Roll Call doesn't allow online access to its archives to non-subscribers, so I'll summarize the anecdote rather than linking to a story.

The story takes place in 1979 when Eagleton was chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on governmental efficiency and the District of Columbia.  The issue before the subcommittee was providing $1.7 billion for the completion of Washington D.C.'s Metrorail.  Eagleton believed that it was important for the nation's capital to have a viable mass transit system, but for political reasons having to do with his re-election campaign back home in Missouri he decided that "he could not back a 'gold-plated' subway system for Washington, D.C."  As the subcommittee's chair, his position was crucial to the success or failure of the bill.

Ira Shapiro in Roll Call, May 21, 2007:

Tom arranged to meet with Sen. Charles Mathias (R-Md.), the subcommittee's ranking member.  "Mac," he said, "I've got to oppose the Metro."

"Then it's dead," Mathias intoned, in his sonorous voice.

"No, Mac," Tom explained, "I'll oppose it, but I won't block it.  You and [then-Sen.] Paul Sarbanes [also from Maryland] can move it if you get a committee Democrat to help."

Tom suggested then-freshman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) as someone who would be supportive of mass transit and "would probably like to floor manage a bill."  Tom said he would be confining himself to stinging dissenting views.

Eagleton's plan went off without a hitch.  The legislation rolled through the Senate by a vote of 66-23.  The legislation provided $1.7 billion in federal funds to go with $400 million from the localities, and the completion of the 101-mile Metro system was never again in doubt.

A cynic would say about this story that Eagleton was being dishonest, advocating one thing publicly and doing another privately.  But a more realistic view is that legislators are sometimes confronted with choices between what their constituents want and what they believe to be the right course of action.  In this case Eagleton's judgment was that the voters in Missouri opposed the D.C. Metro, and he faithfully represented their views in the Congress. At the same time he crafted a solution to the problem that squared with his personal beliefs on the issue.

In practice, Edmund Burke's classic choice, in his famous "Speech to the Electors of Bristol", between legislating as a delegate (of one's constituents) or a trustee (of one's "mature judgment") is seldom black or white.  Usually it is more shades of gray, or, in Eagleton's case, it is both black and white at the same time.

Term Limits for Committee Chairs?

by Karl Kurtz

Earlier this week I testified before the Pennsylvania House Speaker's Commission on Legislative Reform on the subject of term limits.  The commission, which is made up of 12 members from each party, was established by Rep. Dennis O'Brien, the Republican who was elected speaker after House Democrats, who hold a 101-100 margin over the Republicans, were unable to elect their own speaker.  The commission recommended approximately 32 changes in House rules at the beginning of the session and saw 31 of them enacted by the body.  Now it is taking a more in-depth look at four issues: open records, the size of the legislature, campaign finance and term limits.

Term limits are on the agenda in part because Gov. Ed Rendell has mentioned that he thinks that they would be a good idea for the legislature, although he has not pushed a specific proposal.  After hearing testimony and holding a committee discussion (but no votes), the co-chairs of the commission, Rep. David Steil and Rep. Joshua Shapiro, said that their sense of the committee was that there is not strong support for term limits for legislators (which would require a constitutional amendment approved in two separate sessions of the legislature and a vote of the people).

However, it was apparent in the commission meeting that there is considerable interest in the possibility of term limits for committee chairs.  One of the reasons for this is that  the Pennsylvania House has one of the stronger seniority systems in the country because the rules require that the chairs of 23 of the 24 standing committees must come from among the most senior members of the majority party, excluding the seven top leaders.  The only exception to this rule is the appropriations committee.  Seniority does not govern which committee the veteran members get to chair, as the speaker and majority leader can make those decisions.  As one member of the commission put it, "Seniority guarantees you a committee chairmanship but not necessarily a good one."  The practical result of this system, combined with historically low rates of turnover in the Pennsylvania legislature, is that members typically serve more than a dozen years before they become a committee chair.

Knowing in advance that I would be asked about practices in other legislatures regarding committee chairmanships, I boned up on the subject by talking with Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution, Alan Rosenthal of Rutgers University and our own NCSL resident rules and procedure expert, Brenda Erickson.  Here is a summary of what I learned.

Cynicism about Lobbying--In Argentina and the United States

by Karl Kurtz

At the end of my visit to Buenos Aires for the World Congress on Civic Education, I went with NCSL’s key contact in Argentina, Alejandra Svetaz, to meet with an official at the United States Embassy.  Alejandra, who works for a member of the Argentina National Congress and runs an NGO supporting legislative strengthening in Argentina, is organizing a delegation of provincial legislative officials to attend our NCSL annual meeting in Boston this summer and is seeking support from our Embassy for this purpose.  She asked me to go along to meet with the Foreign Service officer to whom she has submitted a proposal and to support her case.

In the course of our conversation with the State Department official, Alejandra, who has attended NCSL annual meetings in the past, mentioned that one of the most valuable things that Argentinean legislative officials could learn from attending our meeting is how lobbying in the United States is vital to the legislative process and conducted in a transparent fashion.  She said that lobbying in Argentina takes place but that it is very secretive.  “Everyone knows who the lobbyists are, but in public we are supposed to act as if they don’t exist,” she said.

I was taken aback when the Foreign Service officer responded by saying, “Oh, I would never hold up lobbying in the U.S. as a model!  We have lots of problems with lobbying.  Congress passes laws to control their activities and all the lobbyists do is figure out ways to evade them.”  She went on to cast aspersions on what she viewed as the pervasive power of certain lobbying groups that she disagrees with. (The “special interests” are always the other guy’s, not our own preferred interests, which we think of as the “public” interest.)

Cynicism about the policy process is so pervasive in American life that I probably shouldn’t have been surprised to hear it from a Foreign Service officer.  But I would hope that those who represent us in our foreign embassies might offer a more informed and positive view of representative democracy in America.

The fact is that lobbying in the United States is conducted in a remarkably open manner.  In the Congress and virtually all state legislatures lobbyists have to register their interests publicly and report (often in great detail depending on the jurisdiction) their expenditures on elected officials.  They testify publicly before legislative committees about their positions.  They provide valuable information to legislators about the impacts of proposed legislation.  To be successful, they must be truthful and honorable with elected officials. 

Maintaining a Quorum, Argentinian Style

by Karl Kurtz

Meeting my own definition of a legislative junkie, I visited my 80th and 81st legislatures--either national or subnational--yesterday.  In Buenos Aires attending the World Congress on Civic Education, I toured the Argentinian National Congress and the Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires. 

These two legislatures meet just a few blocks apart in grand buildings that were built in the late 1890s and early 1900s about the same time as many U.S. state capitols and resemble them in style. The city's legislative building is undergoing repair and updating, and the national capitol is in need of the same, as some of its glory is fading.

Displaying yet another variation on the often complicated governance of federal capital cities like Washington, D.C., Delhi, and Brasilia, the Buenos Aires City Legislature is so autonomous that the laws passed by the Congress do not apply to it.

I was most intrigued and a bit amused by a device that the Congress has for monitoring the presence of quorums in the 257-member Chamber of Deputies and the 72-member Senate. In both chambers the chairs are pressure sensitive and wired to an electronic board on the wall that displays how many members are present and in their seats. Business is not conducted unless a quorum consisting of an absolute majority is registered on the board. The presiding officer must often remind members to be seated to ensure the presence of a quorum.

This gives rise to occasional mischief, according to the veteran staffer to a deputy who was my guide. Members who wish to stall action without appearing to do so will rest their weight on the arms of their chairs. Conversely, resting your feet on your neighbor's empty chair counts for two members being present. One woman legislator weighed so little that her chair did not register her presence, so they gave her some hefty books to hold in her lap.

This device doesn't have much application to American state legislatures because in nearly all of them, by tradition and practice, the members are present during sessions. But imagine how the work of the United States Congress would change if the members had to be in their places for any business to be done!  It would give new meaning to the idea of a seat in Congress.

Another technological innovation in the Argentinian Congress is that the members' electronic voting buttons must be activated by a fingerprint scanner. The scanners are at every desk and work for anyone in the chamber, so the members do not have to be in their own seats to vote.  A few of our state legislatures could use this idea, especially ones where members occasionally reach over and vote for their absent neighbor or jam a letter opener in one of their buttons to register their votes while they are out of the chamber.

[Photo of Congreso de la Nacion Argentina from Wikipedia]

The Buzz: No Child Left Behind Faces Scrutiny

by Bill Wyatt

The federal No Child Left Behind Act was enacted seven years ago over the objections of many state legislators.  Improving accountability and raising school standards in and of itself is not controversial.  The fact that most states had already invested millions of dollars in established accountability programs that now had to be scrapped was disheartening to many.

Now, as Congress prepares to reauthorize President Bush's signature education policy, members of his own party are calling for significant c