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. 

The Man who Links the Academy and the Legislature

by Karl Kurtz

In my 40 or so years of observing, studying and hanging out with legislators and legislative staff, I have found a great many of them whom I admire and look up to.  Somewhere near the top of my list would be Minnesota's John Brandl, who, better than anyone else I know, has been able to combine a career in the legislature and public life with "the academy," as he is fond of calling his 30-year affiliation with the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota.

For 15 years, 1990-2004, John was director of the Legislative Staff Management Institute, an executive management program for senior legislative staff cosponsored by NCSL and the Humphrey Institute.  He and I were partners in this enterprise.  John, a professor of economics who served for 12 years in the Minnesota Legislature, was the person who made LSMI "jell" (an inside joke that one class will recognize).  He had a unique ability, through personal warmth, scholarly rigor, public policy perspective and hard-knocks political stories, to bring together our disparate classes of senior legislative staff from all across the country.

One of John's favorite stories is about how much he liked working in both academic and political life because one of these jobs could relieve the burdens of the other:  "When I got tired of the politics, the backstabbing and the nastiness of my job, I would leave the campus and go over to the capitol and get a new lease on life," he would say.

Lori Sturdevant of the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote a marvelous column this past weekend, "The professor of policy," about John.

John is currently battling a recurrence of stomach cancer that first surfaced a year ago.  The Humphrey Institute held a dinner to honor him tonight.  I would have liked to have been there but couldn't.  Instead I share these few thoughts in The Thicket about an admirable man.  The roughly 300 legislative staff who experienced LSMI under John join me in wishing him good courage and keeping him in our prayers.

The Legislative Staff Management Institute has since moved to Sacramento under the cosponsorship of the University of Southern California and Sacramento State University, but we honor our 15 year history with the faculty of the Humphrey Institute, none moreso than John Brandl.

Initiative Fun in Michigan

by Brian Weberg

Michigan voters are going to have some fun this fall if sponsors are able to get a raft of government reform proposals certified in time for the ballot.  In addition to the proposed measures to create a part-time legislature with reduced pay and to elect state senators statewide on a proportional basis that we reported here a few months ago, recent news from the Wolverine State highlights what some are suggesting is a stealth campaign to shift the state's political balance of power under the guise of government reform. 

Proponents argue that the measure brings long-needed change to state government.  The lengthy amendment includes reductions in the number of members in the legislature, pay cuts to the governor, legislators and judges, new financial disclosure rules, lobbying restrictions and reform of the redistricting process. 

Michigan Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis, comically struggling with a fold out copy of the initiative in a video on YouTube, commented "I've seen Michelin maps of Europe that were smaller and easier to read."  Republicans have come out strongly against the proposal, while the spokesperson for the measure is Dianne Byrum, a termed-out state legislator who completed her legislative career as leader of the House Democrats in Lansing.  However one judges the merits of the reform, it's clear that it is adding fuel to the already scorched political landscape in Michigan.   

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. 

Louisiana Adjournment

"Chaotic legislative session comes to an end" is the Times-Picayune's headline summarizing Louisiana's legislative session that adjourned yesterday.  Here are the top lines of the story:

Lawmakers provided new money for education and health care, overhauled the state's worker-training system, bolstered the state's mental health safety net and steered tax dollars to a private school voucher program for poor children in New Orleans.

But the session is likely to be best remembered for two items that were not part of the governor's plan: an increase of legislative salaries from $16,800 to $37,500 a year, and a $300-million-a-year tax cut that the administration initially opposed but ultimately embraced....

And while House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Algiers, is a subject of derision on radio talk show and Internet chat boards, his stewardship of the pay-raise bill earned him bipartisan acclaim from his colleagues, who saw him as standing up to the administration.

"This is the closest we have come to being an independent body from the fourth floor, and that bodes well for this body," Rep. Roy Burrell, D-Shreveport, said as lawmakers prepared to leave the Capitol.

We first wrote about seeds of change in Louisiana that might lead to more assertiveness on the part of the Legislature a year ago in "Changes in the Louisiana Legislature."

Reform is in the Eye of the Beholder

by Karl Kurtz

What's your definition of reform?  The New York Times today leads a story about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's willingness to allow a legislative pay raise to take effect without his signature with:

The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month.

The increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with considerably more money available once expenses are added in. It has touched a nerve in this impoverished state....

More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul Louisiana’s reputation for dubious ethics.

The story goes on to catalog the media attacks on the governor and the Legislature for the pay raise.

I don't quite get the notion that "reform" means refusing to raise legislative pay while increasing pay seems to constitute "dubious ethics."  I've been collecting data on legislative compensation since 1972.  Since that date the compensation of Louisiana legislators has declined by 15 percent in real terms (taking inflation into account), without considering workload increases.  The last pay raise in Louisiana was in 1980.  In the last 40 years the time demands of legislative work in Louisiana have gone from about a one-third time job to one that Louisiana legislators on average estimate is about three-quarters of a full-time job.  (See "What Accounts for the Amount of Time Legislators Spend on the Job.")

Given these facts, it seems to me that giving Louisiana legislators a pay raise is a no-brainer.  Sure, you can argue about the exact amount of the increase (the original proposal adopted by the Senate was for tripling pay) and whether it should apply to sitting members of the Legislature, but the need for a substantial increase is clear. As Speaker Jim Tucker, who managed the bill in the House (and took most of the heat for it) said in the Times-Picayune, "For all of its bad press, it was the right thing to do.  We need everybody in this state to be able to serve in the Legislature."

In my mind, Gov. Jindal would be a "reformer" if he stood up for the pay raise, signed the bill and told the public why it was important and necessary.

Does it really matter which side claims the mantle of reform?  Maybe not. I am always mindful of something that former congressman and speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Martin Sabo used to say, "Reform is what you call something that you can't get passed on its merits."

Sine Die Traditions

by Meagan Dorsch

Each year, our NCSL contributors to the Thicket work hard to post a Sine Die (scroll down if you hit this link) for each legislature as it goes dark.

This morning, I noticed an article posted by Dan Petty at Stateline.org. Dan had a little fun with his Sine Die piece, delving into the traditions state legislatures have for the final day of session. 

Our own Karl Kurtz wrote an article on Sine Die and other Vulgarities, where you can find a great list of legislative localisms (this is also one of the most googled article in the Thicket).

Please enjoy both pieces when you have some time, and let us know of any other (Sine Die) traditions that your state might celebrate!

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.

What Accounts for the Amount of Time Legislators Spend on the Job?

by Karl Kurtz

Does increasing legislators' pay cause them to spend more time on the job, potentially turning them into full-time legislators if the pay raises are high enough? 

That was a question that I was asked by a New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter last week, as the Louisiana Legislature was in the midst of a debate over a bill that would have taken the unusual step of pegging legislative salaries at 30 percent of congressional salaries, increasing automatically with federal lawmakers' pay in the future.  The effect would have been to triple Louisiana legislators' salaries from $16,500 per year to $50,700. This bill had originally passed the Senate, but the House modified the proposal to double salaries to  $37,000.  Today the  Senate agreed to the House changes.  Since Gov. Jindal has said that he would allow the law to pass without his signature, the change will likely go into effect on July 1.

But back to the original question.  I responded that there is a relationship between pay and time spent on the job of being a lawmaker but that it is not always easy to determine cause and effect.  Generally, the more full-time the work of a legislature, the higher the pay for the members.  But do legislators spend more time on the job because they are getting more pay or do they raise the pay because the job is more demanding?  It's hard to tell.  The best answer is probably that both tendencies are mutually reinforcing.

Two years ago I, along with co-authors Gary Moncrief of Boise State University  and Richard Niemi and Lynda Powell of the University of Rochester, took a look at one side of this problem: what determines how much time legislators spend on legislative work?  We published an article, "Full-Time, Part-Time and Real Time: State Legislators Perceptions of Time on the Job," in State Politics and Policy Quarterly.  The article is based on a national survey of all state legislators that we conducted in 2002 in which we asked the question, "Averaged over an entire year and taking into account session time, interim work, constituent service and campaigning, what proportion of a full-time job is your legislative work?"  We found considerable variation in time spent on the job across states as indicated by the average responses from each state to this question in the map (click to enlarge).

But averages mask significant variations among legislators  within any given state.  For example, in Maine the average response was that being a legislator is two-thirds of a full-time job. But one in four Maine legislators said that the job was less than half-time, and 17 percent said that it was virtually a full-time job.

What accounts for the amount of time spent being a legislator?  To find the answers you can wade through the full article at the link above, or you can read a simplified summary of our findings below the jump.

No Cuts in California Legislators' Pay

by Karl Kurtz

In follow-up to a previous story in The Thicket about a proposal before the California Citizens Compensation Commission to cut pay for legislators and statewide election officials, the commission earlier this week defeated a motion for 10 percent pay cuts on a 3-2 vote.  The commission then voted 4-1 to freeze pay.  California legislators' pay will remain at 116,000 and the governor's at $212,179 for the next year.

Sessions Over in Florida, Hawaii, Colorado, Minnesota and Vermont

by Julie Lays

More states have ended their legislative sessions.

• Florida's session was overshadowed by the state's lack of money, according to the Associated Press. Lawmakers did manage, however, to pass a $66.2 billion balanced budget, with more than $4 billion in cuts targeted mostly at school children and Medicaid patients.
• Hawaii lawmakers ended their session by approving a smoking ban in public places, allocating $3 million for schools and requiring solar water heaters in new housing. They also approved a $50-million tax cut. But the session may be remembered more for those bills that got away as for those that passed, according to the Honolulu Advertiser.
• Colorado's 119-day session ended May 6. Legislators passed major changes to education curriculum and school construction, but they couldn't find solutions to transportation issues. Lawmakers passed a ballot question that will go before the voters this fall to change how citizens amend the constitution through the initiative process.
• The Minnesota Legislature adjourned May 18 with a relatively well-received compromise budget between the Democratic Legislature and Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. According to an editorial in In-Forum, "the relatively cordial end to the session is in stark contrast to previous sessions, and that’s probably a good thing in the long run." Lawmakers boosted per student school funding by $51, came to an agreement with the governor to expand public and private health insurance coverage, and passed a property tax relief package and more state aid for cities, counties and townships.
• Saving the state money, the Vermont General Assembly adjourned two weeks early on May 3. In a surprise move, legislative leaders said they won’t bring the legislature back for a day in June to consider whether to override any vetoes. According to WCAX-TV, lawmakers passed a bill to help Vermonters use less heating oil, revamped the state's prison system to save money and passed a balanced budget in tough economic times with no new taxes.

Good Leadership or Good Looking?

by Meagan Dorsch

I love funny emails and I think the funniest one to date arrived yesterday in my in-box.

A blog called Elected Hotties wanted to let me know that I still had time to vote for one of the hottest legislators in the Utah House of Representatives. Don't worry everyone! Voting has just started for both men and women. Next week, Elected Hotties will judge the members of the Utah Senate, and after Utah, Elected Hotties is coming to vote on members of your legislature!

I had to check out this website. The site's tag line alone ("just another way to get to know your elected officials...the hot ones anyway") made me laugh out loud and take 15 minutes out of my day to explore the webpage. My favorite part is the scrolling pictures of the "winners so far." When you log on (because I know you will) put your mouse over a picture. HA!

This website transported me back to 1985 when I was cutting pictures out of Teen Beat and Tiger Beat magazines. I began to wonder if this is the 2008 version of the magazines for legislative junkies? Can we print their pictures and put them up on our office walls?

There is a conversation in the blogosphere about the Elected Hotties website. We want to hear your two cents.

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.

Judges Jam up Lawyer-Legislators in New York

by Karl Kurtz

In a tangled web in which it is difficult to sort out fact, fiction and rumor, New York State judges are jousting with the Legislature over a pay raise.  Neither state judges nor legislators have received a pay raise since 1999.  The state Senate passed a pay raise for judges in 2007, but the bill did not make it out of the Assembly, purportedly because Assembly members want their own pay raises tied to the judges'.

State judges are angry over the failure to get pay raises and are striking back.  Chief Judge Judith Kaye has filed a lawsuit against the governor, Speaker Sheldon Silver (photo) and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno demanding a pay raise.  The attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, has declined to defend the governor and legislators in the case, so the state is hiring outside counsel.

Recently a number of judges trying cases in which New York legislator-lawyers--or their law firms--are appearing have recused themselves because they say that they are so angry over the pay raise issue that they would not be able to rule fairly.  At least some of them have said that this is a deliberate effort to slow down the process and punish the legislators for their inaction, even though Judge Kaye has warned them against this tactic.

Now another judge in Erie County has filed a notice with the county clerk seeking advice as to whether Speaker Silver's law firm should be disqualified from participating in a multi-million dollar civil suit because of a conflict of interest resulting from the speaker being a named defendant in Judge Kaye's suit.  For his part, Speaker Silver, who is of counsel to the firm, says that he has no stake in his office's lawsuit and that the claim is irrelevant.

As is so often the case in New York, the focus of attention is on the top leaders of the Assembly (mostly in this case) and the Senate.  They are viewed in the media as being all-powerful, autocratic and to blame for everything that is wrong or (rarely) right.  This simplistic view of the power of legislative leaders overlooks the fact that Speaker Silver and Senator Bruno cannot and do not take action without support from their party's majority caucus.  On an issue as visible as the judges' pay raises, they would not remain top leaders if they did other than the bidding of their caucuses.  Lawyers make up a minority of the members of the Assembly and the Senate, so judges taking out their frustration on the lawyer-legislators seems misguided.

Cutting Legislators' Pay

by Karl Kurtz

In "California panel looks at cutting pay of elected officials" in the Sacramento Bee last week, an anonymous NCSL spokesperson (my colleague Morgan Cullen) is quoted as saying that no state has reduced legislator pay in recent times.  How quickly we are proven wrong!  Yesterday's news from Florida reports that the budget deal negotiated by the House and Senate and scheduled to be ratified this week contains a five percent reduction in legislators' pay.  According to the St. Petersburg Times,

The 5 percent self-imposed pay cut for lawmakers is a symbolic gesture, intended as a sign that legislators, who make about $31,000 annually, are willing to share the pain of the worst budget year in decades.

The California story is based on two members of the California Citizens Compensation Commission, which has the responsibility to set pay for state elected officials, arguing that California legislators' salaries should be reduced for poor performance in managing the state's projected $10 billion deficit.  A followup story today debates whether or not the commission has the power to reduce salaries.  Proponents of the idea say that the commission's constitutional responsibility to "adjust" salaries means that they can move them up or down.

But Prof. Tim Hodson of California State University Sacramento, who had a hand in writing the 1990 constitutional amendment that created the commission when he worked in the Legislature, says,

It was never the intent of the Legislature or the people … to allow seven gubernatorial appointees the power to punish the Legislature because it is not doing what they would like them to do.

Thomas Dominguez, a commissioner who opposes reductions, adds, ""We didn't pick the legislators. It's not our job to evaluate their performance. That's the job of each voter." 

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.

Making Legislators' Votes Available Online

by Karl Kurtz

Why do five of the fifty state legislatures (New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington) make comprehensive floor roll call votes on bills available online by legislator, while most states only provide online access to roll call votes by bill?  That was a question that we received from a researcher at the Kennedy School of Government who is doing a study of legislative information systems in Congress, the fifty states, and the 25 largest U.S. cities.  He adds that neither Congress nor the 25 city councils provide roll call voting information by legislator, making the five state legislatures that do even more unusual.

The researcher had some hypotheses in mind (district population and legislative salaries) that might explain why some states provide this information and others don't, but he wanted to know if we had other ideas.  Going on instinct alone and unburdened by any research or data, here was my response:

I'm not sure I have an answer for you.  A standard first question that political scientists would ask about this would be to check it against legislative professionalization.  Using the standard three levels of professionalization, among the five cases that you mention, two (NH and VT) are classic part-time citizen legislatures, one (NJ) is a professionalized ("full-time") legislature and two (NC and WA) are hybrid or in-between.  Nothing apparent there.  The professionalization measure is highly correlated with state population, and as you point out yourself, the NJ case belies a district population explanation.  The professionalization measure also includes compensation of legislators, which you suggest you want to test as an independent variable.  I would suggest using professionalization instead of compensation by itself, but I don't think either one will yield a useful result.

There's also no apparent regional or socio-economic factor among the five states.

The other thing that I would suggest is that roll call voting by legislator is highly political information, subject to misinterpretation and campaign demagoguery.  That's the main reason why most legislatures don't make the information easy to obtain.  It's inherently anti-incumbent information, and since incumbents run the system, they don't make a practice of releasing it.  With the exception of NJ, most of the legislatures that provide this information are somewhat less partisan than most, although there are plenty of others that are equally low in partisanship that don't make the info available.

With only five cases to go on, I think that idiosyncratic explanations will prevail.  For different reasons in each of these states, there is probably a tradition, a provision in the rules or constitution. or a whim of a leader that made roll call votes by legislator available online.  I know that's not a very satisfying explanation to a social scientist, but sometimes randomness does prevail!

Anybody have any better explanations?  If you're in one of the states that provide the roll call information by legislator, how was the decision made to make it available?  If you're in one that does not, have you considered this option?  You can add a comment below or, if you would rather not comment publicly, send me a message by clicking on "Contact us" in the right column.  I will summarize your response and make it anonymous and non-state-specific.

First Woman Majority Leader

by Karl Kurtz

Our members seem to have an unquenchable thirst for "firsts".  Today's request came from Montana: Was Rep. Ann Mary Dussault in 1979 the first woman in the country to serve as house majority leader? 

We're sorry to report that the answer is no.  According to Women State and Territorial Legislators, 1895-1995: A State-by-State Analysis, with Rosters of 6,000 Women by Elizabeth Cox, Rep. Reva Beck Bosone served as majority leader of the Utah House in 1935-36.  In a distinguished career, she later moved on to become a city judge, member of Congress (the first woman from Utah), a congressional staffer, and the chief judicial officer of the U.S. Postal Service.

Another equally distinguished American with a similar resume of "firsts", former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was elected majority leader of the Arizona Senate in 1972 and served for two years.  She made some interesting comments about her service in the Legislature in a 2006 interview in U.S. News and World Report.

These requests for "firsts", like the "longest-serving" questions, seem to be never-ending.  But they are fun bits of legislative trivia, so we report on them.  See, for example, "First African-American Woman Speaker", "African-American Presiding Officers", and "Where Women Run for the Legislature".  Maybe we should create a category in The Thicket for these stories.

A rose from The Thicket to Katie Ziegler for her help on this story.

District Offices for Legislators

by Brian Weberg and Karl Kurtz

District offices, on the model of Congressional district offices that handle constituent casework and other district matters, are rare in state legislatures. When legislators are in their districts, most of them conduct their legislative work from home or from their business. 

However, in legislatures like California, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, district office operations rival their Congressional counterparts in terms of scope of operation, staffing and outreach.  In Texas, for example, state senators may operate several district offices in their geographically large election districts with an average population of nearly 700,000.  There are nine states, mostly the largest population states, that provide district offices for all members (see map--click to expand).

In another 13 states funding is provided to legislators to support their work in the district and they can decide whether to spend it on this purpose or some other.  For example, Tennessee state law says, "Each member of the general assembly shall be paid a monthly expense allowance of $1,000 to provide for expenses necessitated in connection with the member's official duties when away from the seat of government including, but not limited to, telecommunications, office, secretarial and other assistance incidental expenses." (Tennessee Code Annotated 3-1-106(f))  A few Tennessee legislators use these funds for formal district offices, but most work out of their homes or places of business.

The remaining 28 states do not provide district offices to legislators.   For analysis of why some states provide districts and others don't, read below the jump.

State Legislators as Superdelegates

by Bakur Kvaratskhelia and Karl Kurtz

Of the 793 superdelegates for the Democratic party, how many are state legislators?  Surprisingly few.  Only 35 (4.4%) state legislators are serving as superdelegates.  Most of them are also members of the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.  A few are leaders of special caucuses or associations related to the Democratic party.

Of the 35, 14 have committed to Sen. Obama, 11 to Sen. Clinton and 10 are undecided.  This is slightly different from the national count that shows Clinton ahead of Obama, 246-216, with 331 undeclared, but given the very small number of legislators in the group it's difficult to attach any significance to the variation.  All five Illinois legislator superdelegates have endorsed Obama, and the three New Yorkers are all supporting Clinton. 

This question turned out to be harder to answer than we anticipated, because the state legislative affiliation of the superdelegates is not clear on any of the lists.  We had to look up the names of all superdelegates who are not members of Congress or governors.

Once final lists of all delegates to both the Democratic and Republican conventions are available sometime this summer, we'll try to identify all of the state legislators on these lists as well.

For a list of the superdelegates who are legislators, listed by state, read below the jump.

Unusual Eviction of Member from North Carolina Legislature

by Karl Kurtz

Meeting in special session today, the North Carolina General Assembly took the unusual measure of evicting Rep. Thomas Wright from office.  Here is an excerpt from the AP story in the News & Record:

The state House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to remove Rep. Thomas Wright from office, the first such expulsion of a lawmaker from North Carolina's General Assembly in 128 years.

The House voted 109-5 in favor of booting the Wilmington Democrat, who is accused of mishandling or hiding about $340,000 in loans and campaign and charitable contributions. At least 80 votes were needed to kick him out of office....

Only about a dozen lawmakers have been booted from office in state history, the most recent being Rep. Josiah Turner in 1880. The last to face such a potential fate, former House Speaker Jim Black, chose instead to resign in 2007 as prosecutors closed in during a corruption investigation that ultimately sent him to federal prison.

Wright remains defiant, insisting he has done nothing illegal. He is scheduled to stand trial later this month in Wake County on charges almost identical to those considered by the ethics panel.

GOP Rep. Paul Stam, the ethic committee's vice chairman, was blunt in his assessment of the evidence presented at the hearing last month.

"This is really bad behavior. This is stealing. Technically what it is, is embezzlement," Stam said Thursday before he voted to expel Wright. "This kind of behavior is not acceptable, to me, to you, to anyone ... it is unbecoming to a member of this body."

A 2006 NCSL survey of the states showed that expulsions are also rare in other states.  Since the 1970s we found only seven cases of members being expelled from state legislatures.

You can find much of the documentation of the case on Gerry Cohen's blog, Drafting Musings.

Full-time Expectations for a Part-time Legislature

by Karl Kurtz

It's hard to win an argument about full-time vs. part-time legislatures, no matter which side you're on, because most people are of two minds about it.  Take this story as a case in point.

At a hearing yesterday of the Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee on a bill to create a salary compensation commission, the members were discussing among themselves the increasing demands of their supposedly part-time jobs as legislators.  Rep. Mike Doogan, the sponsor of the bill, told an amusing anecdote that captures the public's often ambivalent expectations of legislators:

One day when I was back in my district, I got a call on my cell phone from a constituent who said that he had just been to my district office and was upset that I wasn't there.  I asked him, "Did you call and make an appointment?"

"Oh no, I was just in the neighborhood and thought I would stop by," he said.  "Why weren't you there?"

"You know we have a part-time legislature in Alaska, don't you?  Because we're part-time, I can't be there all the time," I responded.

"Yes, I know that, and I don't want you to be a full-time legislator.  I just want you to be there whenever I want something from you!"

Gift of Kidney now Legal in Alaska

by Brian Weberg

The way has been cleared for a legislative staffer in Alaska to donate her kidney to an ailing legislator.  The Thicket first reported this developing story last week.  Yesterday, Governor Sarah Palin signed legislation eliminating the limit on the value of compassionate gifts to legislators.  Staffer Susan Stancliff was found to be a transplant match for Representative Richard Foster, but the procedure would have violated the existing $250 limit on compassionate gifts.  In signing the bill, Governor Palin called Stancliff an Alaskan hero (we agree!).  Foster, who continues to recover from a stroke, is hoped to be strong enough for the procedure by April.  Stay tuned....

Should Committee Chairs Get Paid More?

by Tim Storey

Many legislators would say that setting their own pay is the most radioactive issue they ever address.  States vary considerably in how they compensate state legislators for the work they do.  And of course, the job of being a legislator differs from state to state, so it is only natural that salaries would be all over the proverbial map. 

Washington State takes the most analytical, and methodologically rigorous approach to setting legislative compensation.  In 1986, Washington voters approved the establishment of the  Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials, which has the authority to set legislative salaries as well as the pay of the governor and other elected officials.  The commission researches pay for similar jobs and analyzes market data as well as what other states pay comparable elected officials.  The Commission relies on a standard approach that most large private sector employers take to determine pay levels for employees.  This is also the model that NCSL frequently employs to study legislative staff compensation.

A number of states recognize that there are different levels of legislative work within the legislature and provide additional pay to leaders and committee chairs.  Whether to offer differential pay to committee chairs continued to come up in Washington, so the Commission hired a consultant to recommend whether chairs and leaders should receive a stipend in addition to the regular salary.  Just as NCSL does when studying staff compensation, the consultant performed a job content evaluation based on various criteria. 

The consultant's report, Legislative Leadership Stipend Study, concludes that Washington committee chairs do not have enough additional responsibilities and duties to merit more pay than rank and file members and that providing extra compensation could make internal management of the legislature more complicated.  The consultant noted that different legislators may perform the task of chairing a committee very differently.  And the consultant reported that a "clear preponderance of opinion from the interviewees (mostly legislators)" was opposed to providing stipends to chairs and other leaders beyond those already receiving them. 

Duck a Vote, Lose Your Pay

by Jan Goehring

If legislators miss a vote in Arizona they will lose pay as proposed in House Bill 2157 introduced by Representative Jerry Weiers. Unless excused, a member who fails to vote on even one bill will forfeit the equivalent of one day's legislative pay.

"We're elected to represent our constituents," Representative Weiers said. "In my opinion, the only representation that truly makes a difference is our vote," as reported by the Arizona Daily Star. The article goes on to say that some members are skeptical of the idea. There  are reasons that legislators are not on the floor sometimes.

NCSL is not aware of any similar legislation in other states.   

Morality in a Digital Age

by Gene Rose

Two journalists' thoughts on morality and communications return me to a reoccuring question I struggle with -- are state legislatures prepared to meet the challenges of communicating in the Web 2.0 age?

The New York Times columnist David Pogue was astonished recently when he couldn't find a question to college students about copyright protection that "would trigger these kids' morality alarm." By asking questions ranging from making safety copies of DVDs to downright illegal downloads of movies, he found that students living in the new digital age are used to acquiring free content and have few qualms about getting the digital content they want by any means necessary.

Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus asked some similar questions to students, but focused more on online newspaper content. Again, he found that students are so used to getting free online news articles that paying a fee for them struck the students as a crazy idea. His larger point is that journalism needs a better business model to guarantee its future.

These columns raise several questions that legislatures should consider about how they communicate on the Internet. Is the content being provided able to compete with other digital content students are downloading? Is information being provided in a format that is easy to obtain and update? Are enough resources being put in place to generate content people will use and become more involved? Is the media -- where most people say they get information about legislative actions -- reacting fast enough to these changes?

There are public information officers in the states who are paying attention to these trends and working on ways to make sure they are adapting to the changes in journalism and the new ways that people are sharing information. Legislatures that don't adapt are at risk of others controlling their messages for them.