Author: The American Partnership

by

Anti-Washington Resolutions from States are Nothing New

States are feeling emboldened in light of the 2010 elections. Increased amounts of Republicans, particularly Tea Party backed victors, believe they have a mandate to oppose the Obama administration. Part of this is a belief that the president and the Democratic 111th Congress were too activist in their policy making. The other part is an underlying trend of states pushing back against what they believe are federal encroachments of state autonomy.

States are engaging in debate on a broad range of issues that can affect federalism, such as a “repeal” amendment, repeal of the 17th Amendment, and repeal or non-implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Some states are addressing numerous federalism issues simultaneously. For example, Blogger Craig McDermott has started a catalogue of all the anti-Washington resolutions debated in Arizona. An industrious person in Virginia could probably do the same for that state. Virginia Delegates Mark Keam and Ken Plum tweeted and editorialized about the utility of such resolutions while they were being debated.

Once passed these resolutions or constitutional amendments are forwarded to Washington. Known as memorials to Congress, the practice has predated the founding of the Republic.  The memorials are not binding on a state’s delegation, but they do provide some sense of the attitudes of states toward federal policy action.

Federalism Issues in Memorials

The 112th Congress is not unique in attracting memorials from states on federalism issues. I recently collaborated on a research project with Justin Gollob of Mesa State College that analyzed the content of memorials to Congress from 1987-2006. Most of the memorials addressed an intergovernmental issue. However, we isolated memorials that addressed the general topic of state-federal relations in the American system.

Not surprisingly, most of the memorials dealt with issues of unfunded mandates, federal preemption of states and generalized appeals to state autonomy under the 10th Amendment. The following two excerpts from Memorials were representative of the resolutions:

“Resolved by the Senate of the State of Kansas, That the Senate urges the United States Congress not to enact any laws or authorize the adoption of rules and regulations which would impose mandates upon states and local units of government therein without providing full funding for such mandates….”

“Resolved by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the Congress of the United States be hereby requested to pay greater heed to the clear restrictions placed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution on the powers of the federal government….”

Recurring Federalism Issues (1987-2006)

Memorials that appealed to the spirit of the 10th Amendment often called for a Federalism Summit that gained traction during the mid-1990s. During this period several states also attempted to change to Constitution to allow states to initiate Constitutional amendments, thereby bypassing Congress. The ostensible purpose of this change would be to create a new federalism amendment to protect states from what they believed were encroachments of their power. Interestingly, there were few calls for increased federal transfers to states. Consequently, block grants and a return to federal revenue sharing were not popular topics of Memorials.

As the table below indicates, these federalism memorials appear to come in waves. The mid 1990s were a period where state criticism of  the federal government reached a critical mass.

Federalism Memorials by Session of Congress (1987-2006)

State officials shared a bipartisan sense of displeasure with the federal government during the 1990s. It remains to be seen whether the current wave of anti-Washington resolutions also crosses party lines or only comes from states with insurgent Tea Party movements in their state legislatures.

For more on the research please see our article in State and Local Government Review. For more on the methodology please see the Policy Agendas Project and the Pennsylvania Policy Database Project at Temple University.

by

The 112 Congress, Federalism and Transportation Policy

Republicans in the 112th Congress are preparing to address a number of issues related to federalism including health care reform, regulatory reform, and a federalism or “repeal” amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These issues certainly deal with questions of the roles of Washington and the states in the American federal system. However, the partisan affiliation of state and local officials tends to influence their position concerning the proper role of the federal government on these issues.

Josh Mitchell (“Battle Lines Form Over Government’s Role”) of the Wall Street Journal reported today on one agenda item for the 112th Congress that can unite partisan and ideological divisions among state and local officals: funding cuts to transportation programs.  Republicans are willing to examine transportation funding as they seek to cut at least $100 billion from federal programs. The potential cuts come as Congress once again seeks to pass a new multi-year transportation bill in 2011.

Reauthorizations of federal transportation policy are a series of macro political and subgovernment  struggles. At the subgovernmental level state and local officials are primarily divided along spatial lines. Southern, rural and low population density states often support more funding for highways and roads while Northeastern and urban areas support funding for a broader mix of mass transit and alternative transportation in addition to roads. Further, funding formulas, the ratio of gas tax contributions versus receipts from Washington and the determination of who gets control over federal funds all serve to divide state and local elected and bureaucratic officials.

These divisions are all secondary to ensuring that the federal government authorizes and appropriates increasing amounts of money with each reauthorization. State and local officials unite for the macro political battle of funding the overall transportation program and then engage in the smaller skirmishes to secure benefits for their specific constituencies.

Republican leadership in Congress will face an uphill battle to cut transportation funding in their efforts to control the deficit. A united intergovernmental lobby led by the National Governors Association, joined with the Chamber of Commerce and construction unions is nearly unbeatable.  Pressure on members of Congress from government officials, businesses and workers in their constituencies  will make it very difficult to oppose transportation funding given the current high unemployment rate, crumbling infrastructure and traffic congestion.

In the final analysis Republicans may have some effect on other issues related to federalism, just not the one issue that unites state and local officials of all ideologies and regions: increased federal transportation funding.