The Thicket at State Legislatures

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. 

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.

The Case of the Missing 34 Pages

by Brian Weberg

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits she used some "uncustomarily crude" language last week when she found out the just-passed (1,768 page, $289 billion) farm bill had gone to the President with 34 pages missing. Described by most as a clerical error, the glitch quickly became political fodder for those opposed to the bill and an embarrassment for Congressional leadership.

President Bush had vetoed the measure in spite of the veto-proof majority that had passed it. Both chambers voted to override. Then the mistake came to light. The House decided to bring the entire bill up again and passed it again. The Senate will take it up again when they return from recess, but few believe the bill will pass the Senate again with a similar veto-proof majority. 

Somewhere deep in this story there is a human tale about the House enrollment clerk who inadvertently dropped one of the 15 titles out of the bill. We probably won't hear much about this part of the incident, but one expects that this clerk had a tough time last week.  The Speaker, congressional leaders and their political advisor's were all angry, wringing their hands and working the spin. And this clerk, having made a human error, was probably taking some serious heat for the mistake. 

I can't imagine there is anyone who works in a state legislature who has not been part of, witnessed, or suffered for a clerical error in the legislative process. They are rare, which is testimony to the skill of these professionals. But they do happen and it can be messy. People get angry and embarrassed, and there are a few who try to gain from the situation. But in the end, these problems are almost always worked out. Life goes on, the process survives, and people continue to do their best. This is all we can and should ask. 

The fact is legislatures and the democratic process depend on these clerks and the people who toil in the background through the enactment of 1,768 page bills or who work through the night struggling to keep everything in order in a flurry of legislation. It isn't easy work, but somehow those who do it...love it. I hope the clerk in the U.S. House is OK.  I hope he/she is hearing encouraging words this week, rather than reprimands.

 

What Happened at NCSL's Spring Forum?

By Meagan Dorsch and Michelle Blackston

How can states address their educational capacity for training nurses? What effects do immigration raids have on families and how can child welfare agencies be prepared? Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case from North Carolina during its next term that could dramatically change the rules for 2010 redistricting for all states.

These are just some of the sessions held last month at NCSL's Spring Forum in Washington, D.C. This year, more than 600 state legislators and legislative staff were able to attend. 

Listen and enjoy over 12 different sessions highlighting federal and state policy issues ranging from health care and REAL ID to the 2008 Elections.

REAL ID Extension Deadline

by Michelle Blackston and Jeremy Meadows

Yesterday was the last day states could apply for an extension from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to delay REAL ID. All but two states received an extension and two others--Montana and New Hampshire--got it without asking for it. The two remaining--Maine and South Carolina--also enacted statutes last year indicating they would not comply with the unfunded mandate that looks to cost states upwards of $4 billion to implement.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford sent a letter to DHS saying the state already had made significant improvements to the security of the state’s driver’s license--meeting as many as 14 of the Departments material compliance criteria--and it won’t ask for an extension.

Maine, whose governor sent a similar letter to DHS last week, still is waiting to hear whether they will receive an extension. And late last night, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff set a new deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday to give the state "more time to show progress toward meeting Real ID guidelines," according to the Associated Press.

Come May 11--Mother's Day 2008--residents from states that do not comply with the federal Department of Homeland Security's standards for state-issued driver's licenses and IDs and have not received this initial extension won’t be permitted to use those licenses as valid ID to board a plane or enter a federal building. Other federally issued IDs--such as passports, military IDs, or federal employee cards--will still suffice.

In an article from the Christian Science Monitor: “DHS had given all states except Maine and South Carolina more time. In letters to Montana and New Hampshire, the Department explained that it was granting an unrequested extension because the states had taken steps toward adopting stricter license security standards.”  Maine and South Carolina are undoubtedly expecting similar treatment.

So, where does this leave the REAL ID?  The President has so far requested pennies-on-the-dollar for what REAL ID will cost the states.  U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) is reportedly planning to submit legislation to delay REAL ID implementation until the federal government picks up the tab.  Most, if not all, states have the Department's blessing to delay implementation until December 31, 2009.  Legislatures continue to debate REAL ID policy and funding in the state capitals as the 2008 legislative sessions move into the second quarter.

In the coming week, NCSL will release a summary of state legislative activity on REAL ID through the first quarter of 2008 that may indicate state reactions to the final rules released by DHS last January.  REAL ID will be on NCSL's Agenda for April Spring Forum, where Senator Alexander is scheduled as a plenary speaker.  And all eyes will remain on Capitol Hill for indications of congressional appetite to tweak the REAL ID law or to ante up federal funds to cajole state compliance.

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.]

Report Recommends Streamlining Indiana Local Government

by Karl Kurtz

A blue-ribbon Commission on Local Government Reform appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels and co-chaired by a former governor and the state's chief justice of the supreme court released a report earlier this week that may be of interest to other states.  The report calls for sharply reducing the number of local elected officials by replacing three-member elected county commissions with a single elected county executive, eliminating township governments and appointing sheriffs. 

Indiana's local government structure was designed in the 1850s and has changed little since then. Commenting that the design of local government had skipped the 20th century, Gov. Daniels said, “If you want to get property taxes down and keep ’em down, this commission has given us a terrific road map for doing that.”

Legislative leaders, though, said that the proposal was too large and complex and fraught with political potholes to consider during the legislature's short session in 2008.  They said that they are more likely to take it up in 2009.

Here are links to the commission's report and an Indianapolis Star story and Masson's Blog about it. 

Indiana county map by Geology.com

Real ID: Where Does the Issue Stand?

by Meagan Dorsch

In this edition of The Buzz, Jeremy Meadows with NCSL's state and federal relations division sits down for a one on one interview with Richard Barth, Assistant Secretary for Real ID Implementation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Barth addressed legislators from all 50 states at NCSL's Fall Forum in Phoenix, Arizona. Barth took the opportunity to update lawmakers on the new rules of Real ID.  Barth said they will cut down on the cost for states to implement Real ID and give states more flexibility in creating the new forms of identification.

Barth also talks to Meadows about the role NCSL played in representing states as the Real ID rules were being drafted.

To listen to the podcast and hear the latest on Real ID, click here. (19:22).  For more information on Real ID, log onto NCSL.    

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]

Is Anger Over Real ID Unprecedented?

by Carl Tubbesing

A New York Times reporter called yesterday. Writing on deadline, he needed a quote. His question: “Have state legislators ever been as angry as they are over Real ID?”

“Ever,” of course, is a long time and, being an NCSL employee who learned to hedge his bets many years ago, I said, “It’s without precedent in the past 20 years.”

No Child Left Behind probably comes in second. The difference between Real ID and NCLB is that NCLB really didn’t offer legislatures a choice. (When the Utah Legislature threatened to opt out of No Child Left Behind, the Department of Education told its leaders they risked losing all of their federal education funding, not just the state’s NCLB money.)

States can choose not to make their driver’s licenses “Real ID compliant,” if they are willing to tell their drivers they can’t use them to get on airplanes or to enter federal buildings. According the NCSL’s Matt Sundeen, who is tracking this activity for us, the Washington, Montana and Idaho legislatures have passed bills so far this session that will prohibit their states from complying. Seven others have adopted resolutions urging Congress to repeal the law.

Erasing the Stigma of Food Stamps

by Nicole Moore

Food Stamps aren't "Food Stamps" in the proposed reauthorization of the Farm Bill, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Mike Johanns told state legislators and legislative staff today at the NCSL Spring Forum in Washington, D.C.

"One of the barriers to increased participation in the Food Stamp program is the stigma associated with the name," Johanns said. "As we modernize the administration of the program, I believe it's time to eliminate the "Food Stamp" program in terms of the name."

Johanns said the administration has goals to increase access in nutrition programs, ensure that taxpayer dollars are used most efficiently and to make Americans healthier. To help achieve these goals, the USDA has proposed renaming Food Stamps the "Food and Nutrition Program." Listen to Johanns discuss this issue and other relevant parts of the Farm Bill reauthorization. (2:46).

Johanns also talked about federal incentives for alternative fuels.

"If someone had told you ten years ago that we'd be growing corn and soybeans to fuel cars, pick ups and trucks, I wonder how much of that we would have believed," he said. "Clean, renewable energy like ethanol and biodeisel allows us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and creates new jobs in rural areas and economic opportunities." Listen to Johanns discuss federal incentives in the Farm Bill. (1:28)

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 State Legislatures magazine.  Our editors at NCSL thought otherwise.  After helping me to rewrite it in a livelier style than my original term-paper-like version, they concluded that a historical perspective on state legislative development had no place in a magazine of current state politics and policy and rejected the article.  I tried to think of another outlet for the piece but never came up with one, and it has been lying in the files ever since.

Well, the blessing (and the curse) of blogs is that there are no pesky editors to deal with.  So I'm going to dust off "The Golden Age of State Legislatures" and publish it here in The Thicket below the jump for those legislative junkies who might be interested in the history of state legislatures in the 18th Century.  Be forewarned, though, I've added a few hyperlinks, but this is not your standard blog posting.  It's longer than most and has very little to do with current events.

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 changes.  State legislators spent the better part of two years studying the law and have recommended several key changes and are asking Congress to help them pay for reaching the goals established in No Child Left Behind.

In the latest episode of The Buzz, NCSL's federal education policy expert, David Shreve, talks about some of the concerns states have and offers suggestions on how to make the law more effective.

Supreme Court Rules in Emissions Case

by Nicole Moore

The Supreme Court has ruled in a greenhouse gas emissions case that pitted 11 states and Massachusetts against 10 states and the federal government. The decision came down on Monday, and it's all over today's papers. Justices ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate new automobile emissions, which are linked to climate change.

Many states have already been working on their own emissions policies. Glen Andersen, who tracks energy and environment issues for NCSL, said this ruling will add weight to California's tough emissions standards. The automobile industry is challenging the California law.

Climate change is one of the policy areas where the states have taken the lead, on their own and in regional coalitions. Many states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- are following California and will phase in tough emissions regulations.

The Buzz: Children's Health Up for Renewal

by Bill Wyatt

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal partnership, is in jeopardy of running out of money in many states.  Congress is currently debating the future of the program which has provided health coverage for over six million children.

Since its enactment ten years ago, all 50 states have created their own children's health insurance programs to meet the needs of children who are not eligible for Medicaid but do not otherwise have health insurance.  Recently, many states have revisited their programs in an attempt to reach more children.

In this latest episode of The Buzz, Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte discusses the key component of SCHIP that has lead to the program's success - state flexibility.

Term Limits Weaken Ties between Congress and State Legislatures

by Karl Kurtz

Because I am one of the NCSL liaisons to the California Legislature, I was asked by our Washington, D.C. office (the arm of NCSL that represents the states before the federal government) a few weeks ago to identify California legislators who are close to two members of Congress and therefore might be able to influence their actions.  It turned out to be a much more difficult task than I had anticipated.  My contacts in California had a hard time in coming up with legislators who have strong personal connections to these particular members of Congress.

Why is this so?  It turns out that this is an unexpected and little noted side effect of term limits for two reasons. 

First, the majority of the members of the California congressional delegation have previously served in the state legislature, so they ought to have a lot of friends back in Sacramento.  But with six- and eight-year term limits in the state Assembly and Senate, respectively, the turnover of legislators means that members of Congress not far removed from serving in the legislature soon lose touch with those in the state capitol.  One of the members of Congress with whom we want to connect served in Sacramento several decades ago, so all of his personal friends are long gone.

Second, term-limited legislators who want to remain in politics are more likely to challenge sitting members of Congress than are non-term-limited legislators who can bide their time until there is an open congressional seat.   This is true both across parties and within the same party.  Since term limits were imposed in California, there have been three challenges of incumbent congressmen by termed-out state legislators in Democratic primaries--Hilda Solis vs. Marty Martinez, Juan Vargas vs. Bob Filner and Joe Nation vs. Lynn Woolsey.  The first was successful, the second two were not.  Such events, rarely heard of before term limits, are likely to cause incumbent members of Congress to look over their shoulders at state legislators and perhaps to keep their distance from the politicians back home.

Is this effect confined to California.  It may just be more observable in a state with 53 members of Congress, and California's shorter-than-most (along with Arkansas and Michigan) lifetime term limits may exaggerate the effects.  Two separate academic articles in a recent issue of State Politics and Policy Quarterly (only abstracts available at the link) by Jeff Lazarus of Georgia State University and Jennifer Steen of Boston College document the fact that term-limited state legislators more frequently challenge incumbent members of Congress than do non-term-limited lawmakers. 

We would like to hear from other term-limited states on this question.  Just add a comment below or send us an email.

In the grand scheme of things, the ties between members of Congress and state legislators are not the most important quality of representative democracy or America's version of federalism.  But to us at NCSL, who rely on these relationships for much of our influence on federal policy issues in Washington, D.C., it's a big deal.

The Buzz: Real ID Still a Concern

by Bill Wyatt

The Department of Homeland Security issued draft regulations last week for the implementation of the federal Real ID Act.  The law is designed to create national standards for strengthening the security of drivers' licenses.

While the goal of the law enjoys wide support among state legislators, its implementation poses many challenges - chief among them the cost.  A survey released last fall estimated the cost of implementation to be at least $11 billion.  The other major concern state officials raised was with the time allowed to reissue the drivers' licenses and identification cards.  The law allows states only 5 years for states to reissue more than 245 million drivers' licenses and identification cards.

The regulations do little to mitigate the costs of implementing Real ID, although they do authorize states to spend money designated for firefighters, paramedics and other first responders on the law's implementation.  As for the reissuance period, the regulations actually create a scenario where the reissuance period may be 18 months shorter for some states.

Many state lawmakers are disappointed by Homeland Security's lack of concern for the states.

"The department chose, in large part, to ignore the recommendations of those who’ve been in the 100-year-old business of issuing drivers' licenses.  They chose rigid, unrealistic deadlines.  They chose duplication.  They chose risk.  And they chose to balance the new rules on the backs of consumers and our nation’s first responders," said Texas Senator and NCSL President Leticia Van de Putte in an op-ed piece published by Stateline.org.

For the latest on the Real ID Act, The Buzz talked to NCSL Homeland Security expert Molly Ramsdell.  Listen to the episode. (10:23)

Role Reversal

by Karl Kurtz

Normally, it's state legislators who complain about inaction by Congress on critical issues or, worse, action that hurts the states.  Complaints are particularly vociferous when Congress passes unfunded mandates or preempts state authority or, in the case of the Real ID act, a combination of the two.  The revolt by the states against the Real ID act is the hottest story in federalism these days.  Yesterday's Grasscatcher, NCSL's news clipping service, contains no less than four articles or editorials supporting states that are refusing to go along with this mandate, including this AP story about U.S. Sen. Susan Collins' plan to introduce a bill delaying the effect of Real ID.

But today's Washington Post brings a story about Virginia's congressional delegation complaining about inaction by the Virginia General Assembly.  After Virginia's congressional delegation met with Gov. Timothy Kaine to collaborate on increasing federal transportation funding, one member of the congressional delegation said,

"We wish that, perhaps, this cooperative attitude could be extended a few hundred yards further to the statehouse," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). "We do hope that the legislature can get it together to do its share."

Not that state legislators would ever complain about what local governments do or the locals about actions by either the feds or the states.

The Buzz: What the First 100 Hours Means to States

By Bill Wyatt

The buzz in Washington this month has been all about the first 100 hours - the Democrats' first 100 hours in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The new speaker and her leadership team set an ambitious agenda which included ethics reform, homeland security, the minimum wage, higher education costs and much more.

Perhaps to no one's surprise, they used their 'honeymoon period' effectively and enacted all they set out to accomplish (within 100 legislative hours NOT real hours).  Bills on the minimum wage, student loans, energy alternatives and prescription drug pricing among now await the Senate's action.  But what should states expect from this 100 hour flurry of activity?

NCSL's chief congressional lobbyist Michael Bird says Congress' ambitious agenda may have broad implications for states.  Some implications may be a bit tough for state legislators to swallow.  Listen to Michael's insight on the latest episode of the Buzz.

A New Immigration Age

By Nicole Moore

Immigration is taking place on an unprecedented scale in places all over the world, President of the Migration Policy Institute Demetrios Papademetriou told state legislators and legislative staff today at NCSL's Fall Forum in San Antonio. And because of this new mobility, he urges policymakers not to always see the immigration issue preceded by the word "illegal."

"We have to think about how to manage and take advantage of immigration and put it to the service of our countries and communities," Papademetriou said. ... "How do we become the architects of a mobility system that lets us put immigration in our economy in ways that are consistent with our values? That's a much harder and a much more consequential question (than how to deal with illegal immigration.)"

He asked to be seen not as a soft heart, but instead as a pragmatist. Listen to Papademetriou discuss what he calls this Age of Mobility. (6 minutes)

Papademetriou also said America has never really been a melting pot (6 minutes, 6 seconds) in sense of requiring those who come here to assimilate entirely. Instead, it's been more of a two-way street. The nation has changed those who come here. And those who come here have changed America.

Gonzales Asks for Stronger Child Sex Crime Laws

By Nicole Moore

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales today urged states to strengthen penalties for pedophiles and child pornographers.

Airplane trouble prevented Gonzales from attending NCSL's Fall Forum in person, but by videoconference, he said he respects federalism and the uniqueness of the states. But still he sees a need for change in some places.

In two states, it's not a crime to posses child pornography without intent to distribute, he said. In six states, possession can be a misdemeanor. And in 20, there are no mandatory minimum sentences.

"I respectfully ask those states that have not taken action to join the national consensus of setting some meaningful floor in sentencing these criminals," Gonzales said. "There should not be any place in this country where a judge could let a child sex offender go free with nothing more than probation. There should not be any jurisdiction where predators can hide behind weak laws."

He also pledged support from the Department of Justice.

"On our end, the Department of Justice is determined to step up with funding and assistance to equip law enforcement with all the knowledge they need so that they can work their cases," Gonzales said.

The attorney general also said he supports regulations allowed under the new federal Adam Walsh Act that allow civil commitment of certain mentally abnormal sex offenders.

Read the full text of his remarks at the Department of Justice website. Listen to an April NCSL podcast tour of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Chidren (7 minutes, 40 seconds.) View an NCSL table of state laws on electronic solicitation or luring of children.

Record-Breaking Year for State Immigration Legislation

By Nicole Moore

This was a record-breaking year for state immigration legislation, said Ann Morse, program director of NCSL's Immigrant Policy Project. In a typical year, state legislators introduce between 50 and 100 bills about immigration. In 2006, they introduced 570, she said at a session on trade policy during NCSL's Fall Forum here in San Antonio. Eighty-four of those bills were signed into law this year. That's more than double the number in 2005. Morse and the Immigrant Policy Project have been tracking this since 1992.

Typically, most of the state legislative immigration bills deal with public benefits, but this year, they touch on other areas like enforcement, education and identification.

Morse cited estimates that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country today, and she said that one of the reasons the number is so high is that it has become dangerous for illegal seasonal workers to go back and forth. These days, they send for their families and settle here.

Listen to her comments about state legislation on immigration (1 minute 30 seconds).

Morse also talked briefly about the history of efforts to regulate illegal immigration. She outlined current federal bills and said that while immigration won't be talked about in the first 100 days of the new Congress, it is expected to come up later in 2007.  Listen to this segment of Morse's talk (3 minutes, 40 seconds).

NCSL bloggers will be writing from Fall Forum all week.

Higher Ed Needs Help, NCSL Commission Says

By Nicole Moore

It wouldn't be out of the question for public higher education to disappear if we don't change the way our colleges, universities and state legislatures operate in America, Connecticut Representative Denise Merrill said today. Merrill spoke at a telephone press conference to release the recommendations of NCSL's Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education. Rep. Merrill chaired the commission along with Wisconsin Representative Rob Kreibich.

Funding for colleges and universities tends to get cut when states face tough budget choices. It's a natural reaction. Higher ed has an alternate revenue source in tuition. But college tuition has risen so steeply in recent years that many students are being priced out, NCSL's Blue Ribbon Commission contends.

Since the 1980s, the price of college has increased faster than even healthcare costs. While median family income has increased by 127 percent, college tuition and fees have gone up 375 percent. That's according to Measuring Up 2006, a report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

College affordability is just one of the problems facing higher ed, the commission found. Fewer Americans are finishing school and other countries are passing us by in terms of the percentage of their populations that graduate. The commission has come up with a list of 15 things state legislatures can do to begin to turn the tide. States do most of the regulating and funding of public colleges and universities.

In the press conference today, Merrill, fellow commission member Texas Rep. Geanie Morrison and Director of NCSL's Education Program Julie Bell discussed these issues.

The report is available at NCSL's bookstore.

Postmortem on Property Rights

by Larry Morandi

As expected, the eight property rights ballot measures dealing solely with eminent domain received voter approval on November 7 (Louisiana approved theirs on September 30).  All passed with comfortable margins ranging from 55–86 percent.  Six were legislative referrals and three citizen initiatives.  Not surprising since the bills enacted by 30 state legislatures after a controversial Supreme Court decision—Kelo v. New London—received comparable levels of support.

The twist in the elections was that two of the three ballot measures that combined eminent domain with another property rights issue—regulatory takings—lost, and a fourth that dealt only with regulatory takings also went down to defeat.  Eminent domain differs from regulatory takings in that the former is a physical taking of property while the latter occurs when a regulation deprives a landowner of all economically viable use of the property.  The regulatory takings measures would have required government to pay landowners for any reduction in property value caused by a regulation or rescind the action.

They went down for a number of reasons.  How much it might cost budget-strapped cities and counties and what the effect on local planning would be were certainly considerations.  Resentment that much of the financial backing came from out-of-state sources was also at play.  Another concern?  Property rights "cut both ways"—how do you balance the rights of individual landowners with those of their neighbors whose property values may be affected by incompatible development.

Expect the regulatory takings debate to continue during the 2007 sessions, though most likely not in combination with eminent domain…which will receive more attention on its own.

What USA Today Left Out About Higher Ed

By Nicole Moore

Front and center on USA Today this morning is a story headlined Should government take a yardstick to colleges? The piece is about U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and her higher education commission's recent report. Among the report's recommendations are more transparency and accountability in higher ed to give consumers more information about graduation rates, student learning and other areas when picking a school.

The story has comments from Spellings, of course, and from the higher ed community. But it leaves out the voice of the main player in public funding and regulation of colleges and universities: the states.

The federal government's limited involvement in higher education today includes funding academic research and financial aid for low-income students. The states are responsible for other regulation and funding, which adds up to roughly $70 billion a year.

Had state legislators been asked what they think about the Spellings Commission report, they would have said they welcome the report. It's good to start this important discussion. But they would have stressed that it's their job, and not the federal government's job, to alter the course of higher education in America. Higher ed has always been and must remain a state matter. Read more in this press release.

NCSL's Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education formed before the Spellings Commission. It's a bipartisan, 12-member group. We're planning to release its recommendations on Monday, Nov. 27.

[Photo courtesy of Flickr]

The Inconvenient Truth About State Budgets

by Corina Eckl