LESSONS FROM ROSENTHAL WLSA&RDC 2014 GARY MONCRIEF
ALAN ROSENTHAL
ROSENTHAL S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LIFE Ask questions Enjoy what you do Have fun Have more fun Keep to yourself that which need not be public
ROSENTHAL S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LEGISLATURES Legislatures are complex Legislatures are misunderstood Legislatures are sometimes their own worst enemies Legislatures are under threat Legislatures need defenders Legislature need leaders Legislatures are not all the same
BILLD 2013 Legislatures are impressive political institutions, but they are not at all popular ones.they are probably the most unappreciated institutions in the country. --Alan Rosenthal, The Engines of Democracy
LEGISLATURES ARE NOT APPRECIATED BECAUSE, UNLIKE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT 1. they are large 2. they are diverse 3. they are relatively open 4. they are messy 5. they suffer from the collective action problem
PERCENTAGE OF BILLS PASSED 2011-2012 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NY MN NJ PA MA MO WV CT HI IL IA OH WA FL SC TN MS WI KY VT IN NM OK MI AK RI TX AL AZ MD OR NC GA KS NH CA MT VA LA ME NV SD DE WY CO AR ND ID UT
STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES OVER THE DECADES The Fifties : Legislatures as backwater institutions The Sixties : The reapportionment revolution The Seventies : The modernization movement The Eighties : Increased autonomy and growing careerism The Nineties : Use of the initiative to define legislatures The New Millenium : Heightened Partisanship, Fiscal Stress and New Technology
BILLD 2013 State Government is the tawdriest, most incompetent, and most stultifying unit of the nation s political structure. low grade and corrupt legislatures. Without exception, legislatures, as a whole, are a shambles of mediocrity, incompetence, hooliganism and venality.state legislatures are the most sordid, obstructive, and antidemocratic law-making agencies in the country. --Robert S. Allen, Our Sovereign State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1949), pp.xxxi
THE 60 S: REAPPORTIONMENT REVOLUTION After the revolution, it took 48-50% of the population to elect a majority. Prior to the reapportionment cases 1962-1965, a majority of the house seats could be elected by one-third or less of the population in at least one chamber in IL, IA, KS, MI, MN, ND and OH. (it was actually even worse elsewhere in 11 states a majority of seats were controlled by less than 1/5 of the population)
THE 1960 S PRIOR TO REDISTRICTING: PCT POPULAR VOTE NEEDED TO ELECT A MAJORITY IN HOUSE 1962 1966 Alaska 47.7% 47.7% Arizona 46.0 50.6 California 44.7 48.6 Colorado 32.1 53.8 Hawaii 38.5 43.0 Idaho 32.7 46.7 Montana 36.6 47.9 Nevada 35.0 47.5 New Mexico 27.3 46.3 Oregon 48.0 n/a Utah 33.3 47.6 Washington 35.3 46.7 Wyoming 35.8 47.4
.THE SENATES 1962 1966 Alaska 35.0 50.9 Arizona 12.8 52.3 California 10.7 48.9 Colorado 29.8 50.1 Hawaii 21.0 49.7 Idaho 16.6 46.9 Montana 16.1 46.8 Nevada 8.0 50.4 New Mexico 14.0 45.8 Oregon 47.3 n/a Utah 21..3 48.1 Washington 33.9 47.6 Wyoming 26.9 46.4
WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE REAPPORTIONMENT REVOLUTION? A shift toward urban and suburban representation Opened the door for more women and minorities Increased the perceived legitimacy of the legislative institution for a broader segment of the public
THE 1970 S: THE MODERNIZATION MOVEMENT In recent years the people have come to realize, in increasing degree, that the capacity of state governments to meet the demands placed upon them requires the unshackling of the legislature. CSG, The Book of the States, 1962-1963 p. 33, referencing a quotation from The Committee on Legislative Processes and Procedures of the National Legislative Conference in 1961
THE 70 S: MAKING LEGISLATURES MORE CAPABLE AND MORE ATTRACTIVE Increased staffing Better working facilities Higher Pay Move to annual sessions These reforms were largely effective in making legislatures coequal branches of
ROSENTHAL ON STAFFING LEGISLATIVE LIFE (1981), P. 342 Probably the greatest difference between the contemporary legislature and its predecessor is in professional staffing. Now there are service agencies assisting committees, fiscal bureaus and appropriations staffs, legislative reference bureaus, audit evaluation agencies.although their role is still evolving, staff has had a profound impact on how legislatures behave and what they accomplish. Staff has strengthened the legislature vis-à-vis the executive. It has abetted, and even encouraged, the legislature s performance in policy making, appropriations, and oversight.
ROSENTHAL ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES Years ago state legislatures merited much of the criticism that is aimed at them today. Lately, however, they have proved to be more deserving; now they merit commendation rather than blame.. No longer a relic of the past, the legislature has built up capacity and become heavily involved in the governance of the state. --Alan Rosenthal, Legislative Life (1981)
AND JUST IN TIME! POPULATION GROWTH AND THE EFFECT ON LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT SIZE 1970 US Population = 203 million 2010 US Population= 308 million (105 million increase in 40 years; a 52% increase) The median state legislative house district grew from about 25,000 to over 40,000 The median state senate district grew from 72,000 to 110,000 The total number of state legislators DECLINED slightly (there are 180 fewer seats than in 1973).
THE 70 S: AND BEYOND: GROWTH IN HOUSE DISTRICT POPULATION State 1970 census 2010 census % change Alaska 7,550 17,756 135 % Arizona 59,100 213,067 260 California 249,637 465,674 86 Colorado 33,985 77,372 126 Hawaii 15,098 26,672 76 Idaho 20,371 44,784 120 Montana 6,677 9,894 48 Nevada 12,218 64,299 426 N. Mexico 14,529 29,417 102 Oregon 34,850 63,851 83 Utah 15,347 36,851 140 Washingtn 68,894 137,235 100 Wyoming 5,449 9,393 72
STATE LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY INDICATORS 1979-2009 SOURCE: MONCRIEF AND SQUIRE, WHY STATES MATTER, TABLE 4.2 1979 2009 Percent change MEDIAN SALARY $23,098* $ 20,806-10% Median days in session 58.5 59.5 1% Median staff per member 2.7 3.9 44% *ADJUSTED TO 2009 DOLLARS
STATE LEGISLATIVE SALARY AS PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATURE SALARY COUNTRY LOWEST STATE SALARY HIGHEST STATE SALARY MEDIAN STATE SALARY NATIONAL LEGISLATURE SALARY ($ U.S.) Germany 32% 90% 63% $135,000 Australia 60% 95% 85% $183,000 Canada 41% 82% 58% $153,000 U.S. <1% 54% 13% $187,000
THROUGH THE 80S: PERCEIVED CHANGES OVER TIME 330 VETERAN LEGISLATORS PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGES SOURCE: MONCRIEF, KURTZ AND THOMPSON, LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY (1996) CONDUCTED IN 1995, THE SURVEY WAS SENT ONLY TO THOSE MEMBERS WHO HAD SERVED AT LEAST 15 YEARS SINCE AT LEAST 1980 Increased Same Decreased Pressures of Job 91.5 6.1% 2.4 % Constituent Service 87.2 10.6 2.1 Executive Oversight 56.5 30.1 13.4 Ideological Conflict 52.0 36.2 11.8 Media Influence 64.5 25.7 9.8 Lobby Influence 50.9 36.6 12.5 Governor s Influence 25.0 39.9 35.1
SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR OF LEGISLATORS Increase in ideological conflict Higher priority to re-election Likely to campaign against the institution More time and effort spent raising campaign funds
THE 90 S: LIMITS ON LEGISLATURES THROUGH DIRECT DEMOCRACY The increased use of the initiative The reaction against legislative institutions through Term Limits
INITIATIVES ON THE BALLOT, BY DECADE SOURCE: INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INSTITUTE 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 initiatives 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010-12
THE NEW CENTURY EFFORTS TO ALTER THE LEGISLATIVE INSTITUTION PARTISAN POLARIZATION GRIDLOCK AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL UNIFIED GOVERNMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL THE FUTURE OF FISCAL FEDERALISM
Between 2010 and 2013, legislators recalled in: Arizona, Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin And legislation was overturned via referendum in: Ohio, South Dakota, Idaho
THE GROWTH IN UNIFIED GOVERNMENT PER CENT OF STATES WITH EXECUTIVE AND BOTH LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS CONTROLLED BY SAME PARTY 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 states 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
TIME: SHORT-TERM VERSUS LONG- TERM Legislators operate in a system based on sequential events: bill introduction deadlines, 3 reading rules, committee action, floor action, other chamber action; candidate filing dates, primary election dates, general election dates. Quite understandably, this creates a can t see the forest because of the trees syndrome We lose sight of the need to protect the legislative institution.
GEOGRAPHIC PERCEPTIONS The nature of the American system of representation is geographically-based: everyone is elected from a specific geographic district. Consequence: It s hard to see the forest because everyone is defending his/her particular tree
PARTISAN PERSPECTIVES We are in a period in which the two parties are very competitive nationally and this is true in some states as well. And most observers feel the two parties are further apart from one another, ideologically, than we have been for a long time. Consequence: Don t want to see the forest because my party s trees are the only true trees
POLARIZATION PHOTO SOURCE: VLADIMIR STRUMKOVSKY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
POLARIZATION SCORES BASED ON ROLL CALL VOTES FROM THE AMERICAN LEGISLATURES PROJECT, BORIS SHOR AND NOLAN MCCARTY Source: for this slide and subsequent slide: http://americanlegislatures.com/2014/07/23/statelegislative-ideology-polarization-2013/
ROSENTHAL S CONCERN WITH HYPER- PARTISANSHIP ENGINES OF DEMOCRACY (2009), P. 428-430 Legislators, among others, are distressed by the increase in partisanship and the consequent decline of civility in state legislatures since the 1960s. Now, campaigns for targeted seats in the competitive districts are run by legislative parties and legislative party leadership. With increasing partisanship and the expansion of partisan staffing in many senates and houses, partisan considerations have grown in importance while substantive considerations have declined. Standing committees have ceded some of their authority to majority party caucuses and top legislative leaders.
ROSENTHAL AGAIN Anyone elected, or even appointed to high public office has a responsibility to the office he or she holds. Those elected to serve in legislative office have a comparable responsibility to the legislature.the genius of representative democracy in American lies mainly in its legislative bodies. Legislators themselves have to work at maintaining the well-being of these bodies as political institutions. Engines of Democracy, p. 418