The Thicket at State Legislatures

Legislative Pay Raise Vetoed

by Tim Storey

It may be the most radioactive issue for legislators to deal with--their own pay.  Legislators in Louisiana must be feeling a bit burned after the governor reversed his position under intense outrage from some Pelican State residents and vetoed a legislative salary increase that the legislature approved before adjourning.  We wrote about the pay raise here in the Thicket last week.  According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Governor Jindal vetoed the bill on Monday saying,  "I clearly made a mistake by telling the Legislature that I would allow them to handle their own affairs."  It sounds like something a prime minister would say about his/her parliament. 

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. 

Texas Governors' Mansion Fire

This just received from Ken Levine, deputy director of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, about the fire that damaged the Texas governor's mansion:

...The Texas Governor's mansion has been the oldest continuously occupied Governor's mansion west of the Mississippi.  The mansion is (was?) a truly wonderful historic building, on the National Register of Historic Places.  It was the home of our current president for six years and our current governor (and former legislator) for about the same.  Then Governor Bush used to hold regular breakfast meetings with Lt. Governor Bullock and Speaker Laney in the mansion.  Although of different parties, the meetings at the mansion are perhaps why the legislative and executive branches got along fairly well at that time.

Anyway, we are all pretty shocked by the images of the fire.

Photo credit: Governor's Press Office

 

Fixing a Deficit in State Legislative Experience in the Presidency

by Karl Kurtz

In Governing's Ballot Box blog today, Alan Greenblatt notes that it is rare in modern political history that former state legislators become president and that Sen. Barack Obama's claiming of his party's nomination for the presidency means that "...now every state legislator in the country -- all 7.400 of them -- can, like U.S. senators, look in the mirror and see a potential president."

In January 2007 in The Thicket we noted that six of 19 declared candidates for president in the 2008 election were former state legislators.  How soon we forget Tancredo, Gravel, Vilsack, Thompson and Kucinich, leaving only Obama as a presidential candidate with state legislative credentials.  We have also written in "State Legislators who Became President" about how 22 of 43 (51 percent) presidents are former state or colonial legislators but that there have been only five since 1900.

This reminded me that in 1994 I had proposed a fundamental change in American government that would have had the sure-fire effect of producing presidents who had backgrounds in state government: requiring that all candidates for federal office have previous state legislative experience.  The piece was entitled "Reinventing Federalism" and was based on a hypothetical question that U.S. District Court Judge William L. Dwyer had asked both sides in a constitutional challenge to Washington state's limit on the terms of members of Congress: If states can make experience a disqualification for federal office (i.e. term limits), then could they impose an experience requirement as a qualification for office? 

I pounced on this idea and, tongue-mostly-in-cheek, urged that "State legislatures across the nation should immediately initiate state constitutional amendments requiring six years of state legislative service for anyone who runs for the U.S. House of Represenatives, Senate or president."  I spun this fantasy out into a number of variations that would strengthen American federalism by repairing damage done by the establishment of direct election of senators in the 17th Amendment. I concluded with the idea that the combination of term limits for members of Congress and experience requirements for federal office would mean that: "The best and the brightest state legislators would have someplace to go at the end of their terms, and Congress and the presidency would be replenished with experienced and committed practitioners of federalism."

Had the states taken me up on my proposal, then neither John McCain nor Hillary Clinton would have been eligible for the 2008 nomination for president.  That's not a knock on them; it's only a daydream of a state legislative junkie.

Recall: Tool of Accountability or "an Affront to Representative Democracy"?

by Karl Kurtz

Recall, the procedure for voters to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office, is infrequently used at the state level but has been in the news in California, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey in the last couple of weeks.  Eighteen states provide for recall of state officials, but the procedure is used far more often at the local than the state level of government.

Today's Sacramento Bee has a story about a recall petition against California Republican Sen. Jeff Denham that has qualified for the ballot.  The date of the recall vote, which is structured in a similar manner to the one in which Gov. Gray Davis was famously removed and replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003, must be called by Gov. Schwarzenegger, most likely in conjunction with the state's June 3 state primary.

His name doesn't appear on the ballot, but state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata is the indisputable driving force behind the recall of Sen. Jeff Denham, the first of a California legislator since 1995.

Ostensibly, the Democratic leader's effort to unseat a Republican who was easily re-elected in 2006 stems from last year's 53-day state budget stalemate. Denham joined his GOP colleagues in voting against the spending plan.

But beyond the bad blood over the budget, a successful recall would move Democrats, who hold a commanding 25-15 lead in the Senate, to within one vote of being able to pass a budget and raise taxes without a Republican vote.

On the same theme, the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday editorialized against the recall:

The effort to recall state Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, is worse than an abuse of the recall process. It is an affront to the very principles of representative democracy.

The editorial goes on to charge Senate Democrats with political opportunism for initiating the recall against Sen. Denham rather than other Republicans because his district, which has more registered Democrats than Republicans, is a target of opportunity.  I couldn't find a response from Sen. Perata to these claims, but proponents of the recall campaign against Denham say that he should be held accountable for his vote against the budget.

In Illinois, which is not one of the 18 states that have the recall, the House of Representatives last week passed a proposed constitutional amendment to establish a recall procedure by a vote of 75-33.  The Chicago Sun-Times called the amendment "a blunt

Frankenstein (Veto) Wounded in Wisconsin

by Bruce Feustel

Yesterday Wisconsin voters approved a constititutional amendment limiting the governor’s considerable veto power preventing the governor from using a partial veto to create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of a bill approved by the legislature.

When your state’s veto power is commonly referred to as the “Frankenstein veto,” you know you have something unique.  Wisconsin governors have the authority to approve spending bills “in whole or in part.” A long succession of Wisconsin governors, supported by some fascinating court decisions, have made creative use of the partial veto through strikethroughs that have created new language far removed from what the legislature originally passed.

At the height of creative veto practices, some Wisconsin governors struck individual letters in the wording of spending bills to create or reveal new words in a manner suggestive of Vanna White and the game show “Wheel of Fortune.”  The “Vanna White” veto was eliminated by constitutional amendment several years ago, and recent court decisions have also restricted the governor's veto power. 

However, many in the Badger State still felt that the governor had powers similar to the fictional Dr. Frankenstein in being able to stitch together words from multiple sentences in passed legislation to create a markedly different result. The legislature began a constitutional amendment procedure to limit this power in 2005 that culminated in yesterday's voter approval. 

Long Time Legislative Auditor Set to Retire

by Bob Boerner

According to The Associated Press State & Local Wire, the Treasure State is losing the long-serving legislative auditor to retirement.  Montana's legislative auditor since August 1985, Scott Seacat, will retire on June 30, 2008.

Mr. Seacat is the third legislative auditor in Montana history since the office was created in 1967 and is the longest-serving.  He has worked in the Legislative Audit Division for 32 years and headed it for 24 years.  He estimates that audits over the past 32 years have saved Montana taxpayers more than $350 million.  The Montana Legislative Audit Division does independent financial audits and performance audits of state government agencies and programs.

A total of 45 state legislatures, including Montana, have established these specialized evaluation offices to help state legislators meet their critical oversight responsibilities.  There are only three directors who have served longer than Mr. Seacat.  George Schroeder, in the South Carolina Legislative Audit Council, has served as Director since November 1975 and Jim Nobles, in the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, has served as Legislative Auditor since 1983.  And, John W. Turcotte was Executive Director of the Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation Expenditure Review (PEER) from 1978 to 1995, Director of the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) from 1996 to 2003 and Director of the North Carolina Program Evaluation Division since June, 2007.

A Senator who can Vote Twice?

by Karl Kurtz

New York's musical chairs situation in which Lt. Governor David Paterson will become governor and Senate Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore Joe Bruno will become acting lieutenant governor raises a curious question reported on by The New York Times blog, City Beat: "In a Senate Tie, Could Bruno Vote Twice?" 

In other words, could Senator Bruno vote once as a senator and then again, in the event of a tie, as the lieutenant governor who by constitution has a tie-breaking vote?  The issue is of considerable interest in New York because of the narrow 32-30 margin for the Republicans in the Senate.  This situation of the temporary Senate president also serving as lieutenant governor will persist through the elections of 2008, in which all New York senators are up for election, until the next gubernatorial election in 2010.  If the Senate were to be tied after the 2008 elections, this question would become critical and could determine which party holds the majority.

Not surprisingly, this issue is a matter of some dispute in New York.  According to the Times posting, Republicans say that the pro tem would have two votes, while the Democrats say no, he would not.  The experts are uncertain.

This has led inevitably to a question from New York to NCSL: What is the practice in other states on this matter?  The short answer is that Pennsylvania appears to be the only other state where it might be possible for a senator/acting lieutenant governor to vote twice.  For the long answer, read below the jump.

Arkalifornia?

by Karl Kurtz

Given the differences in their size, Arkansas and California governments usually get compared to one another only because they are right next to each other alphabetically in a typical 50-state table.  But in his budget message last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged that California adopt a spending control provision modeled on Arkansas's revenue stabilization law.

Of course, this generated the expected derision from Californians who don't like to be compared to any other state.  "If I wanted to live like Arkansas, I would move to Arkansas," scoffed California Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

In "Schwarzenegger hopes to model state budget process after Arkansas," Aaron C. Davis of the AP went out and did his homework, producing a mixed review of how well the Arkansas system works.

Going beyond the comments in the AP story about the Arkansas system, the Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research has a very detailed Powerpoint presentation, "Financing State Programs in Arkansas," that covers the revenue stabilization law.  In case you don't want to wade through all 77 (!) slides, the revenue/spending system is covered in slides 33-47.  In simplified form, this policy requires the legislature to place the minimum level of funding for each state general fund program into a category A.  This amounts to around 90 percent of estimated available revenue.  Additional levels of support for state programs are placed in category B (another five to seven percent of estimated revenue) and still further amounts (the available balance) into category C.  Category B funds are spent at the governor's discretion only if adequate revenue is available, and category C is expended only after B.

In its assessment of the program, the Bureau of Legislative Research points to the following benefits of the law, which was put into practice in 1945, saying that it:

• Removed the dedication from major broad-based taxes
• Provided a fund distribution from a pool to various operating funds
• Allowed the legislature to set their funding priorities every two years [the Arkansas General Assembly is biennial]
• Prevented deficit spending
• Reduced funding instability due to changing economic conditions
• Assured agencies of even cash flow.

So far so good, but the Bureau's presentation also points to some unintended consequences of the law:

• Permitted the approval or mandate of a program without providing funds to implement it, raising unrealistic expectations
• Allowed the Governor to manipulate financing and timing of legislative enacted initiatives
• Permitted agencies and the Governor to determine programmatic priorities within funds and disregard legislative intent
• Created uncertainty in the agency financial plan for the year.

Advocates of legislative branch independence and the ability of the legislature to balance the power of the executive in California or any other state should take a close look at those unintended consequences before adapting the Arkansas system to their own states.

Texas Ruling Prevents House from Removing its Speaker

by Karl Kurtz

Last Friday evening, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an interesting opinion saying that the speaker of the house is a "state officer" with a fixed term of two years and cannot be removed from the chair by the members of the legislature.  By Texas Constitution and statute, state officers can be removed from office only by a vote of impeachment in the house and trial and conviction in the senate.  Like any other member of the house, though, the attorney general said that the speaker can be expelled from the body by a vote of two-thirds of the membership.

The attorney general issued the opinion in response to a request from Representatives Jim Keffer and Bryan Cook who had attempted to oust their fellow Republican Tom Craddick from the speakership last May.  Speaker Craddick had blocked this move by ruling them out of order for the reasons that were ultimately supported by Attorney General Abbott.

The attorney general qualified his finding by saying that the Constitution does not specify that the speaker is a state officer, nor that the speaker's term of office is fixed, but that in his opinion, based on court precedents from the 19th and 20th centuries, the Texas Supreme Court was "likely" to rule in this fashion.  The attorney general refused to rule on another question that was posed as to whether the speaker has the right to deny recognition of members for motions, saying that he did not want to rule on matters of internal house rules.

Speaker Craddick hailed the decision, while his opponents decried it, as described in The Dallas Morning News story on the subject.

This opinion, which seems unusual in the context of what we know of other states' procedures, appears to be peculiar to Texas law.  Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, the most commonly used authority on legislative procedure in the states, specifically states:

Sec. 581. Removal of Presiding Officer

1. A presiding officer who has been elected by the house may be removed by the house upon a majoirty vote of all the members elected, and a new presiding officer pro tempore elected and qualified.
2. When there is no fixed term of office, an officer holds office at the pleasure of the body or until a successor is elected and qualified.

Mason's Manual, however, is subordinate to any state's constitution, statutes and internal legislative rules of procedure.  The attorney general's opinion doesn't mention Mason's.

Massachusetts 2007 Sessions Ends before Thanksgiving, Begins Again in Seven Weeks

by Richard Cauchi and Christina Nelson

After 323 days, the Massachusetts General Court wrapped up formal sessions for 2007 the day before Thanksgiving.  The year was marked by transitions, realigned political forces, and growing concern about revenue shortfalls by next year.

The Democratic majority in both House and Senate (at 88 percent the largest in the nation) applauded loudly when Deval Patrick was sworn in as the first Democratic governor in 16 years (and the first black governor in the Bay State’s 387 year history).  But the media quickly played up the disagreements between the freshman governor and the seasoned legislative leadership.  The resignation of Senate President Travaglini in March resulted in the first-ever woman President: Senator Therese Murray.

Some local media complained that only 208 laws were approved this year,"
although statistics show that this is more than states such as WI, OH, PA, MI and NJ. 

The state's Fiscal Year 2008 budget was the most visible bill for the first six months. It moved fairly smoothly and was completed by the June 30th deadline.  The State House News Service (Sept. 17, 2007, not online ) quoted Senate Ways and Means Chair Steven Panagiotakos as saying that the governor signed off on roughly 98.5 percent of the Legislature's $26.8 billion FY 2008 state budget. This included over $1.8 billion to maintain the administration’s commitment to the Commonwealth’s historic health reform law. 

The small portion he vetoed proved contentious, as reported by Statehouse News. In the final week of session, the legislature returned to override vetoes and add $37 million of the $41 million in cuts back into the spending plan. Veto overrides often found Republicans and Democrats voting together, though Senate Republicans used their floor time to question the governor's adherence to campaign promises on cuts to fire safety, Department of Youth Services, and local tourism councils. Votes in the House went much more quickly. 

"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.]

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.

New Study of the Effects of Term Limits Published

by Karl Kurtz

Department of shameless self-congratulation and -promotion: The 23 academic political scientists and staffers for NCSL, the Council of State Governments and the State Legislative Leaders Foundation who participated in the four-year Joint Project on Term Limits are pleased that our book, Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case of Term Limits, reporting the results of our research has now been published by University of Michigan Press.  The book was edited by Bruce Cain of University of California, Berkeley, Richard G. Niemi of University of Rochester and myself.

You can find a summary and table of contents for the book here and nice blurbs about it here (we especially liked the one by Bernard Grofman). And if you prefer, you can read Coping with Term Limits: A Practical Guide, a 30-pp. condensed version of the book (which is 230 pp.) aimed at practitioners rather than academics.  We blogged about the release of Coping with Term Limits a year ago.

Institutional Change in American Politics is #436,005 on Amazon.com's best-seller list.  Don't look for an authors' tour at a bookstore near you anytime soon.

Nebraska Completes Legislative Session with Lots of New Members

by Janna Goodwin

On May 31, Nebraska senators ended the first session of the 100th Legislature. The 2007 session has been hailed as historic as term limits yielded 22 new senators (out of 49) to Nebraska's unicameral legislature. Newly elected Speaker Mike Flood remarked that despite some trepidation and anxiety over the experience lost at the close of the last session, most would agree that the new senators adapted quickly and contributed to the legislative process.

Senators enacted legislation that tackled tax relief, a reorganization of the state Department of Health and Human Services office and water and vegetation management. Other legislation addressed educational issues in the Omaha metro area, increased tax deductions for contributions to college savings plans and promoted renewable energy by encouraging wind energy and biodiesel development.

The approved tax cut plan included a chunk of property tax relief with an 8-cent per $100 valuation property tax credit. It also eliminated the income tax marriage penalty and ended the state’s estate tax. A Nebraska family of four that earns  $75,000 and owns a $200,000 home will save about $422 on income and property tax in the next year.

One major piece of legislation was passed, but then vetoed by the Governor. LB 658, would have allowed for creation of Class I school districts through what some believed was a complicated process. Nebraska public school districts are divided into five classes, mostly determined by population. Last year a referendum repealed a law that called for the assimilation of Class 1 districts, which primarily consisted of grades K-8, into the K-12 school systems. L.B. 658 established a reorganization process allowing for the creation of new Class I school districts. The governor said that the process set out in the bill to form and govern Class I districts was unfair. The veto means the state returns to an existing law that no longer shields Class I schools, and their buildings could be sold or demolished.

Janna Goodwin is one of NCSL's liaisons with the Nebraska Legislature.  Photo of Nebraska dome by Eric Oxendorf.

Rules Changes Don't Make Conflicts Go Away

by Karl Kurtz

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee has a good story, "Budget brawl boosts lure of majority vote," on discussions in California about removing the state's two-thirds majority requirement to pass a budget in the wake of the budget impasse in the legislature that ended last week.  The story quotes one of my colleagues as follows:

Arturo Pérez of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which represents state lawmakers, said California is one of three states that have a two-thirds majority requirement on budgets. Arkansas and Rhode Island are the others.

"Simple majority is the rule of the land," Pérez said. Even Congress passes budgets with a simple-majority vote, as do most cities and counties.

With Republicans the minority party in California for most of the past several decades, the higher voting threshold for budgets has given them a say on the state's annual fiscal plan. This year, Republicans used that power to delay passage of the budget for 52 days.

Pérez cautioned, however, that a simple majority will not ensure an on-time budget. He pointed to North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Illinois as three simple-majority states that failed to pass their budgets on time this year.

"There's so many elements involved in any type of legislation, and the budget is simply the largest example of that," Pérez said. "It's too simplistic to say if we had X, we'd have Y."

Arturo's wise comment that changing the rules of the game will not necessarily produce ontime budgets is a corollary of a principle espoused by political scientist E.E. Schattschneider in a classic 1960 work, The Semisovereign People.  Schattschneider's principle of the displacement of conflict says that institutional structures or rules may affect when and where battles occur but that they don't cause the conflicts to go away. 

Budget battles in the states are a good illustration of this idea.  The rules of the game vary greatly from state to state.  For example, the Maryland Constitution prohibits the legislature from increasing the governor's budget, only allowing the General Assembly to decrease line items proposed by the governor.  Does this eliminate negotiation and compromise between executive and legislature?  No, it means that legislative leaders who want to influence the budget have to make their priorities known to the governor before the budget is submitted. Maryland governors pay attention to legislative priorities for fear that they may have to sustain unwanted budget cuts, if they don't respond to the leaders. 

Budget battles are usually the most visible conflicts in American politics because the stakes are highest, and they are the greatest test of wills between political parties and branches of government.  In our two-party, separation-of-powers system, there will always be conflicts between Republicans and Democrats, governors and legislatures, even between chambers, regardless of the rules of the game.

This is not an argument for or against a two-thirds vote vs. majority rule on budget bills in California--or any other rules change.  There may indeed be good reasons for changing the rules--in California or any other state--and thereby affecting when and how conflict over the budget occurs.  Instead, it is a caution that a rules change will not eliminate the disagreements and the need for effective negotiation and compromise to resolve them.  It is, as Schattschneider's book is subtitled, "a realist's view of American democracy."

Special Session Required to Complete Montana State Budget

by Sara Vitaska

The Montana Legislature apportioned the state's $1 billion surplus, but it took Gov. Brian Schweitzer calling policymakers back to Helena for a special session to approve a state budget, tax cuts and a school funding plan. The 2007 session became the first regular Montana Legislature in history to adjourn without adopting a budget for the coming biennium.  According to the Missoulian newspaper, the 2007 Montana Legislature was the most contentious in years. 

The 90-day legislative session started and ended embroiled in partisan politics. The 2006 statehouse elections left Democrats with a narrow 26-24 lead over Republicans in the Senate, while Republications in the House had a 50-49 vote margin over Democrats, with one Constitution Party member who typically voted with Republicans. The Senate partisan composition had been tied until former a Republication legislator switched parties after the November election.

Education, human services, corrections, alternative energy, and tax relief for homeowners topped the 2007 biennium agenda. Several of the Governor's "Square Deal" initiatives came to fruition as the legislature passed $140 million for public schools over the next two years; $400 one-time property tax rebates for homeowners; a $100 million infusion into the state's prison system for new facilities and programs; and significant one-time contributions to the state retirement system.

According to a Lee Newspaper poll, Montana voters flunked the Legislature's job performance, while at the same time, strongly supported some of the session's major accomplishments. The poll found that 67 percent of voters gave the divided Legislature a negative job-approval grade. At the same time, 55 percent of voters said Gov. Schweitzer's $400-per-household property tax refund was sufficient. The poll also found that 63 percent of voters approved of the Legislature's spending almost three-fourths of the projected $1 billion surplus on public schools, prisons, human services, state colleges and construction. Twenty-six percent indicated more of the surplus should have been returned to the taxpayers. In addition, 53 percent approved of the decision to provide money to schools districts who wish to offer voluntary full-day kindergarten.

History was made this session when Missoula's Carol Williams was elected as the first female Senate majority leader in Montana history. During the special session, Republican leaders elected Rep. Dennis Himmelgerger to replace Rep. Mike Lange who was asked to resign as House majority leader following his disparaging remarks about the Governor and other Democrats during the regular session.

[Sara Vitaska is NCSL's liaison with the Montana Legislature.] 

Maine Legislature Adjourns

by Ron Snell

Sine Die on June 21 in Maine saw Republicans and Democrats both congratulating themselves and each other for a successful budget process for the biennium, though their measures of success differed a little.  The Legislature passed its budget by more than a two-thirds majority in each house, which required a bipartisan effort.  D's (who control both chambers) praised increased spending for K-12 education, which increased the state's share in an effort to help local governments control property taxes.  R's took pride in avoiding the $136 million tax increase that Governor John Baldacci had called for at the beginning of session.

Maine Senate Democrats' summaries of the session are here and here; Senate Republicans here.

One nationally significant enactment was legislation to prohibit administration of the federal Real ID law in Maine.

Another significant success for the Legislature was approval of  $295 million in bond issues, of which voters strongly approved $131 million  for transportation and environmental purposes in June.  The remainder will go to voters later in the year.   Democrats took pleasure in the approval of the bond issues.  Republicans took credit for whittling it back from $2 billion in proposals to what they saw as an acceptable amount that prioritized investments in infrastructure.

Among the year's issues, the most controversial were the governor's proposal for a $1 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, which was defeated; his proposal for dramatic consolidation of school districts; and a legislative proposal for extensive state tax reform.  School district consolidation was approved in a weakened form, but, as part of the budget package, caused the Senate Republican Leader and other Senate and House Republicans to vote against the budget.  Tax reform, a session-long project would have shifted some of the tax burden from the income tax to a broader-based sales tax and thus to tourists.  Final agreement was impossible, but Governor Baldacci has announced his concern for tax reform and raised the possibility of a special session in the fall.

[Photo of Maine Capitol dome by Eric Oxendorf]

A Separation of Powers Victory in Wisconsin

by Bruce Feustel

The Wisconsin Attorney General recently challenged the state legislature’s bill drafting procedure. Citing the state’s public records law, the Attorney General sued two legislators, attempting to require them to provide copies of their unintroduced bill drafts that they had allegedly shared with special interest groups but not the general public. Wisconsin is similar to most states in that legislators are free to share bill drafts, prior to introduction, with whomever they want to in order to get feedback on the bill from a political, legal or practical standpoint.

On June 27, a Wisconsin Circuit Judge ruled for the defendant legislators, saying the bill drafts clearly fell within an exception to the public records law. Further, the bill drafting procedure was viewed “to be at the very core of the legislature’s essential role in government and appears to be beyond the proper jurisdiction of this court.”

[Story update]: Advocates of legislative independence and the separation of powers can celebrate this victory, but an AP story (or is it an editorial?) by Ryan J. Foley has a different take on it, leading with these two paragraphs:

Wisconsin lawmakers are winning a legal battle to limit your knowledge about what they're working on - and they're making you pay $400,000 for it.

Lawmakers have racked up $398,000 in legal fees so far to defend their ability to keep drafts of bills hidden from the public, officials said Thursday. The mounting bills are being paid by taxpayers.

The story goes on to quote legislators who point out that it was the Attorney General who brought the suit in the first place and caused the Legislature to have to defend itself.

[Bruce Feustel is a senior fellow in NCSL's Legislative Management program.]

Property Tax Relief, Health Care for Working Poor Highlight Indiana Session

by Karl Kurtz

We feel good about our sine die series that provides a brief report on each legislature's major actions after adjournment for the year.  It's a quick snapshot of legislative sessions that we think is useful to readers throughout 2007.  There's a big problem with the series, though: we can't keep up!  During the last two weeks in April and the first two weeks of May about a dozen legislatures adjourn their sessions, and we're not doing a very good job of reporting on them.  We'll do our best to catch up, but it may take a few weeks. 

The Indiana Legislature, which adjourned at the end of April, had some interesting partisan conflicts among the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate and governor.  A budget deal worked out between the governor and top leaders won broad support and passed by a wide margin in the Senate, but narrowly won House approval when all of the Republican minority members voted against it.

In "A warts-and-all win," the Indianapolis Star says that the House Republicans were particularly unhappy about a property tax relief bill that was championed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.  This tax rebate was touted as one of the most important accomplishments of the session, along with a new health care program for the working poor that will be funded by an increase in the cigarette tax.

Gov. Daniels was not as successful in getting two other priorities through, as House Democrats thwarted his effort to privatize the state's lottery and to build two new privately funded bypass highways.  News stories and blogs made much of how the governor changed his style from previous sessions by staying out of the limelight and working with legislators behind closed doors.

The legislature also passed a pay raise for itself that was significant not only for nearly doubling legislator pay over the current $11,600/year but also for tying future legislative salaries to the rate of increase in senior executive salaries.  Gov. Daniels has promised to sign the bill.

Other good stories about the 2007 Indiana legislative session can be found in Masson's Blog: A Citizens Guide to Indiana Government and taking down words...Indiana politics a la carte.

PG 13

by Tim Storey

The last days of a legislative session are like (insert your favorite metaphor.  I'll go with...) a pressure cooker.  Almost everybody is tired and stressed to the breaking point.  And sometimes, tempers flare.  As the session nears the end in Montana, House Republican leaders are taking a decidedly strong stand in opposition to the Democratic governor.  See this story from the Billings Gazette. 

Georgia Legislature Adjourns--For Now

by Karl Kurtz

Georgia legislators showered themselves with paper (photo by Andre, courtesy of Georgia Politics Unfiltered) as they adjourned sine die shortly after midnight this past Friday.  But they will more than likely be back in special session before long because of an epic House vs. governor and Senate fight among Republicans who control all three.

The battle was over a mid-year correction to the budget for the remaining two months of the fiscal year.  Both the House and the Senate had passed a $142 million property tax cut but had not funded some key programs that Gov. Sonny Perdue wanted.  Gov. Perdue vetoed the bill.  On the last day of the session the House took the unusual step of overwhelmingly overriding the veto by a vote of 163-5.  The Senate, though, supported the governor by not taking up the veto override on technical grounds, and the budget bill died as a result.  Because the budget correction measure contained some badly needed funding for critical programs, the governor almost certainly will call a special session to resolve the issue.

It will be interesting to see if the governor works out his differences with the House before the special session takes place.  If not, Speaker Glenn Richardson promises to override the veto again in the special session and, failing that, to pass the same budget and send it to the governor again.  If forced to vote on the veto, some speculate that the Senate will also override it.

The donnybrook over this year's budget overshadowed strong agreement on a budget for FY2008, a decision to join the stampede of states to a Feb 5 presidential primary in 2008, passage of a limited school voucher program to allow parents of children with special needs to use state money to send their children to private schools, and enactment of a nondestructive stem cell research bill.  You can find the details of the budget battle and these other bills on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's legislative web page.

[Photo by Eric Oxendorf]

The Golden Age of State Legislatures

by Karl Kurtz

The period from the late 60s to the early 90s produced the most remarkable changes ever in the history of the development of American state legislatures.  Think I'm talking about the last three decades or so of the 20th Century?  Guess again: It's the 18th Century.

Several years ago, at the end of the last century, I wrote an article comparing the changes in legislative institutions and American federalism that occurred in 1965-1990 to those of 1770-1800.   It was based on my reading of several articles by historians in a now out of print two-volume set, The Encyclopedia of the American Legislative System, Joel H. Sibley, ed.

My intention was to publish the article in