(Download pdf) State And Local Government 11Th Edition Ann Om Bowman full chapter pdf docx

State and Local Government 11th
Edition Ann O'M Bowman

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/state-and-local-government-11th-edition-ann-om-bow
man/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Guide to Local Government Finance in California
https://ebookmass.com/product/guide-to-local-government-finance-
in-california/
Close Ties in European Local Governance: Linking Local

State and Society 1st ed. Edition Filipe Teles
https://ebookmass.com/product/close-ties-in-european-local-
governance-linking-local-state-and-society-1st-ed-edition-filipe-
teles/
In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget

Crises David Schleicher
https://ebookmass.com/product/in-a-bad-state-responding-to-state-
and-local-budget-crises-david-schleicher/
American Government and Politics Today 11th Edition

Steffen W. Schmidt
https://ebookmass.com/product/american-government-and-politics-
today-11th-edition-steffen-w-schmidt/
Education Across the United Kingdom 1944–2017: Local
Government, Accountability and Partnerships 1st ed.
Edition Robert Mccloy
https://ebookmass.com/product/education-across-the-united-
kingdom-1944-2017-local-government-accountability-and-
partnerships-1st-ed-edition-robert-mccloy/
The State of Texas: Government, Politics, and Policy

3rd Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-state-of-texas-government-
politics-and-policy-3rd-edition-ebook-pdf/
The State of Texas: Government, Politics, and Policy

3rd Edition Sherri Mora
politics-and-policy-3rd-edition-sherri-mora/
The State of Texas: Government, Politics, and Policy,

5e Sherri Mora
politics-and-policy-5e-sherri-mora/
Innovative Infrastructure Finance: A Guide for State

and Local Governments Can Chen
https://ebookmass.com/product/innovative-infrastructure-finance-
a-guide-for-state-and-local-governments-can-chen/
Copyright 2022 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-208
Eleventh Edition
State and Local

Government
Ann O’M. Bowman
Texas A&M University
Richard C. Kearney
North Carolina State University
With
Carmine P. F. Scavo
East Carolina University
Australia • Brazil • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States
Copyright 2022 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product
text may not be available in the eBook version.
Copyright 2022 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-208
State and Local Government, © 2022, 2017 Cengage Learning, Inc.
Eleventh Edition
Unless otherwise noted, all content is © Cengage.
Ann O’M. Bowman
Richard C. Kearney ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the
with Carmine P. F. Scavo copyright herein may be reproduced or distributed in any form
or by any means, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
Senior Vice President, Higher Education
& Skills Product: Erin Joyner
For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Product Director: Laura Ross
Cengage Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 or
Product Manager: Lauren Gerrish support.cengage.com.
Product Assistant: Martina Umunna For permission to use material from this text
Content Manager: Manoj Kumar, or product, submit all requests online at
Lumina Datamatics, Inc. www.cengage.com/permissions.
Senior Digital Delivery Lead:

Dana Edmunds Library of Congress Control Number: 2020920365
Senior In-House Subject Matter Expert:
ISBN: 978-0-357-36740-7
Emily Hickey
Senior Marketing Manager:

Cengage
ValerieHartman
200 Pier 4 Boulevard
Intellectual Property Analyst:
Boston, MA 02210
Deanna Ettinger
USA
Intellectual Property Project Manager:
Carly Belcher
Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning solutions
Production Service: with employees residing in nearly 40 different countries and
Lumina Datamatics, Inc. sales in more than 125 countries around the world. Find your
Learning Designer: Erika Hayden local representative at www.cengage.com.
Senior Designer: Sarah Cole

To learn more about Cengage platforms and services, register or
Cover Image: iStock.com/Sean Pavone
access your online learning solution, or purchase materials for
your course, visit www.cengage.com.
Printed in the United States of America

Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2020
Contents
Preface vii The Evolution of State Constitutions 62

Constitutional Reform 69
1 State and Local Governments: Methods for Constitutional Change 75
New Directions 1 State Responsiveness and
Studying State and Local Governments Constitutional Reform 82
inthe Twenty-First Century 2 Chapter Recap 83
The Capacity of States and Localities 6 New States’ Rights? 72
The People: Designers and Consumers Should Washington, DC Become the
ofGovernment 18 51st State? 76
Linking Capacity to Results 25 4 Citizen Participation and
Chapter Recap 26 Elections: Engaging the Public in
Should Governments Have Innovation Government 84
Offices? 10
Participation 85
Creating an Image, Rebranding a
Place 17 Elections 94
Direct Democracy 101
2 Federalism and the States: Sorting Citizen Access to Government 107
Out Roles and Responsibilities 27 The Effects of Citizen
The Concept of Federalism 29 Participation 112
The History of U.S. Federalism 31
Chapter Recap 113
Models of Federalism 43 Voter ID Laws: Good or Bad
Intergovernmental Relations 46 Idea? 91
Federal Purse Strings 51 Participatory Budgeting: Letting the
Public Decide How to Spend Public
The Future of Federalism 55 Money 108
Chapter Recap 58
What Level of Government Should Take 5 Political Parties, Interest Groups,
the Lead for Pandemic Threats? 38 and Campaigns: Influencing Public
Should the States Legalize Policy 114
Marijuana? 57 Political Parties 115
3 State Constitutions: The Interest Groups 125
Fundamental Rules of State Political Campaigns 134
Government 60 Chapter Recap 143

The History and Development of the Opening Up the Ballot to More
Fundamental Documents 61 Parties 122
iii
iv Contents
Should Political Spending in Budgeting in State and Local

Campaigns Be Unrestricted by Governments 213
Government? 143 Human Resource Policy in State and
Local Governments: Patronage
6 State Legislatures: The People’ s Versus Merit 221
Representatives 145 The Politics of Bureaucracy 232
The Essence of Legislatures 146 New Public Management 234
Legislative Dynamics 147 The Quality of Public
Legislative Behavior 157 Administration 239
How a Bill Becomes Law (or Not) 159 Chapter Recap 240
Legislative Reform and Capacity 161 Take the Children into Custody or
Relationship with the Executive Leave Them with Their Mom? 212
Branch 168 Social Media: Problematic or
Legislatures and Capacity 171 Panacea? 240
Chapter Recap 172 9 The Judiciary: Independence vs

Do-It-Yourself e-Redistricting 152 Accountability 242
Should State Legislatures Be More
The Structure of State Court
Professionalized? 164
Systems 244
7 Governors: Power, Politics, and How Judges Are Selected 248
Executive Leadership 174 Judicial Decision Making 258
The Office of Governor 176 Judicial Federalism 264
Being Governor: Duties and Administrative and Organizational
Responsibilities 181 Improvements in State Courts 266
Formal and Informal Powers of the Chapter Recap 270
Governor 189 Judges: Elected, Appointed, or
Informal Powers 199 Merit-Selected? 257
Leaving Office 203 What if the Jury Pool Becomes a
Puddle? 260
Other Executive Branch Officials 204
The Capability of U.S. Governors 206 10 Local Government: Types and
Chapter Recap 207 Functions 271
Is Private Sector Experience the Orientations to Communities 272
Best Preparation for the County Government 276
Governorship? 180 Towns and Townships 294
Should Executive Branch Officers Be
Elected? 193 Special Districts 296
School Districts 298
Communities and Governance 300

8 Public Administration: Budgeting
and Service Delivery 208 Chapter Recap 301
Public Employees in State and Local Should Public Employees Have to Live
Governments: Who They Are, What Where They Work? 280
They Do 210 Outsourcing City Services 289
Contents v
The State’s Responsibility in Local

11 Local Leadership and Governance: Bankruptcy Events 387
Continuity and Change 303
Community Power 305 14 Economic Development:
Property Rights: A Matter of Power 310 Competing for Growth 391
Local Executives 311 Regional Differences in Economic
Prosperity 393
Local Legislatures 321
Approaches to Economic
Leadership and Capacity 327 Development 396
Chapter Recap 329 The Politics of Economic Growth 398
Should All Cities Have a Strong Current Approaches 400
Mayor? 313
The Mayor, the City Council, Persistent Questions 408
and Walmart . . . and the The Implications of Economic
Community 328 Development Policy 414
Chapter Recap 415
12 State-Local Relations: Fifty
The Creative Class and Cool
Different Systems 330 Cities 395
The Distribution of Authority 331 Should a State Government Provide
Metropolitics: A New Challenge for Tax Incentives to the Film Industry
State Government 339 to Make Movies There? 412
States and Urban Policy 349
15 Education Policy: Reading,
States and Their Rural Communities 353
Writing, and Reform 417
The Interaction of State and Local Is There a Crisis in Education? 419
Governments 355
Intergovernmental Roles in
Chapter Recap 356 Education 424
Should a State Bail Out Its Financially
The Education Policy Actors 433
Stressed Local Governments? 334
One Big California or Several The State Education Policy
Regional Californias? 348 Leaders 436
Educational Innovation in the
13 Taxing and Spending: Where the States 438
Money Comes from and Where It The Continuing Challenges of Public
Goes 358 Education 451
The Principles of Finance 359 Chapter Recap 453
Revenues 363 Should States Implement Common
The Political Economy of Taxation 377 Core Standards? 441
Should Teachers Have Tenure? 446
Managing Money 384
Current Issues
Finance in State and Local
388 16 Criminal Justice: Cops and
Corrections 454
Chapter Recap 389 How Much Crime Is There? 456
Should Medical Marijuana Be Fighting Crime 457
Taxed? 373
vi Contents
The Ongoing Challenge of Crime Turning Welfare Checks into

Fighting 460 Paychecks 503
Intergovernmental Roles in Criminal Health Care 506
Justice 460
Chapter Recap 512
Actors in Criminal Justice Policy 461 Combatting Homelessness 497
How Policy Participants Interact: Two Should Welfare Recipients Be Drug
Policy Areas 465 Tested? 505
Capital Punishment 467
18 Environmental Policy: Regulation
Correctional Policy 471
and Innovation 513
Policy Alternatives for States and
The Political Economy of Environmental
Localities 477
Protection 515
The Current Challenge in Crime and
Corrections 484 New Approaches: Moving Toward
Sustainability 517
Chapter Recap 485 Clean Air, Clean Water, and Politics 518
Should Potentially Invasive
The Greening of States and
Data-Driven Policing
Technology Be Restricted or Localities 522
Prohibited? 459 State Commitment to Environmental
Are Private Prisons a Good Protection 523
Idea? 483 Dealing with Waste 528
Two Challenges for Policy Makers 536
17 Social Welfare and Health Care
From Short Term to Long Term 540
Policy: Addressing Poverty and
Sickness 486 Chapter Recap 541
Thinking About—and The Challenges of Regulating
Measuring—Poverty 487 Polluters 524
Should Cities Enact Plastic Bag
Social Welfare and Ideology 489 Bans? 531
Current Social Welfare Policy 491
Types of Social Welfare Programs 492
State Innovations in Social References 543
Welfare 499 Index 572
Preface
I
f someone had told us in 1990 that the first edition of State and Local
Government would become what is now widely recognized as “the market
leader” and followed eventually by an eleventh edition, we would have
been doubtful. That first edition broke the mold of traditional state and local
government texts by offering a positive, thematic approach to introducing
government at the grass roots. We were gratified and delighted when the
book quickly built up adoptions in research universities, four-year colleges,
and community colleges across the United States. There are quite a few rival
texts today, but we like to think that the competition makes ours better. We
heartily thank our colleagues in the State Politics and Policy section and the
Urban Politics section of the American Political Science Association for their
ideas and comments on various editions of this book. And we thank as well,
researchers too numerous to mention individually, for their insightful anal-
yses that are published in scholarly journals and inform our latest edition.
When the preparations began on the eleventh edition of this book, the
COVID-19 pandemic was just a speck on the horizon. Work proceeded as the
virus’s threat to state and local government grew. Hospitals were crowded with
patients, schools closed, businesses suspended operations, tax revenue fell, public
works projects were delayed—the list of effects goes on and on. In short, demand
for public services increased dramatically but resources to meet those needs fell
just as dramatically. At first it looked like the Great Recession all over again, but
then things grew even worse. Unemployment in late spring 2020 rivaled rates in
the Great Depression of the mid-1930s. By the summer of 2020, state legislatures,
city councils, county commissions, local school boards and all other governmen-
tal bodies were beginning to cope with the fiscal impacts of the pandemic. But
other issues are just as complicated as the fiscal ones. How could the 2020 elec-
tions be held so that public health was not endangered by in-person voting? How
long could businesses be required to stay closed before permanent damage to the
national economy occurred? How should state and local government enforce clo-
sure regulations against businesses that insist on remaining open? How can state
legislature or city council or county commission sessions occur online if laws
require in-person votes? Can state and local governments require individuals to
wear masks in public or is this a civil liberties violation? How can schools operate
effectively while maintaining social distancing and public health?
Despite the drumbeat of criticism of government and public officials in
the mass media and by anti-government talk-show hosts, we like politics and
public service,
ment can particularly
be—and at theforce
often is—a statefor
and localinlevels.
good WeWe
society. believe that govern-
do acknowledge
some of the concerns voiced by critics of government. Yes, there continue to
be inefficiencies; and sure, there are some politicians who, once elected, seem
vii
viii Preface
to forget the interests of the people back home, not to mention what their
parents taught them. But by and large, state and local governments work well.
On a daily basis, they tackle some of the toughest issues imaginable, designing
and implementing creative and successful solutions to problems ranging from
crime and corrections to education and the environment. And they do so with
a remarkable diversity of approaches.
In the eleventh edition of our text, we again seek to capture the immediacy
and vitality of state and local governments as they address the challenges facing
the American people. A major goal is to foster continuing student interest and
involvement in state and local politics, policy, and public service. Many of the
students who read this text will work in state and local government. Some will
run successfully for public office. All will deal with state and local governments
throughout their lives. We want our readers to know that state and local gov-
ernments are places where one person can still “do good,” make a difference,
and serve a cause. For students who go on to graduate study in political science,
public administration, public policy, or related fields, states and localities are
fertile fields for research. And for students taking this course because they “have
to” and who purport to dislike politics and government, we invite them to keep
an open mind as they explore the fascinating world of politics at the grass roots.
The Theme of State and Local Government

This book revolves around a central theme: the growing capacity and respon-
siveness of state and local government. Our theme is being sorely tested by the
COVID-19 pandemic, but not found to be wanting. Despite their many chal-
lenges, state and local governments continue to be proactive, expanding their
capacity to address effectively the myriad problems confronting their citizens.
From Alabama to Wyoming, they are responsive to their rapidly changing
environment and to the demands of the citizens.
Our confidence in these governments does not blind us, however, to the
varying capabilities of the 50 states and some 90,000 units of local govern-
ment. Some are better equipped to operate effectively than others. Many state
and local governments benefit from talented leadership, a problem-solving
focus, and an engaged citizenry. Others do not fare so well, and their perfor-
mance disappoints. Rank partisanship divides many states as they become
increasingly “Red” or “Blue.” Still, as a group, states and localities are the driv-
ing forces—the prime movers—in the U.S. federal system. Even those juris-
dictions perennially clustered at the lower end of various ratings scales have
made quantum leaps in their capability and responsiveness.
Features of the Text

The themes of State and Local Government are supplemented by boxed features
that provide compelling examples of nonnational governments in action. The
boxes labeled “Controversies in States and Localities” highlight issues that
may cause a jurisdiction to venture out on a limb, trying something new. The
It’s Your Turn boxes, which are new to this edition, present students with two
sides to an issue and ask them to consider their own position.
Preface ix
The Controversies in States and Localities features are intended to gen-

erate debate and discussion among students. For example, state government
responses to the COVID-19 crisis are featured in Chapter 2, participatory bud-
geting in Vallejo, California, is explored in Chapter 4, and the effort to get
more third parties on state ballots is covered in Chapter 5. Utah’s innovative
website that engaged citizens in redrawing legislative districts is the focus in
Chapter 6, governors with primarily private sector experience are examined in
Chapter 7, and the proposal to split California into several states is the subject
of Chapter 12’s Controversies box. Chapter 16 looks at the issue of prison pri-
vatization, and mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants is considered in
Chapter 17. Each of the Controversies in States and Localities now concludes
with a series of critical thinking questions.
The It’s Your Turn boxes engage students more directly, by asking them to
take a side in a controversial issue. These issues include whether Washington
D.C., should become the 51st state, whether state legislatures should be more
professionalized, and whether a state should bail out its financially stressed
local governments. Other It’s Your Turn boxes ask students to consider the
arguments for and against state governments providing tax incentives to the
film industry for filming in their state, cities enacting plastic bag bans, states
enforcing strict voter ID laws, and states legalizing marijuana.
Sincere effort has been invested in making this book accessible to the
student. Each chapter opens with a series of Learning Objectives and closes
with a Chapter Recap to help structure student learning. The Learning
Objectives are also called out within each chapter, to help students make the
connection between each learning objective and chapter content. We have
included updated photographs to provide visual images that bring the world
of state and local government to life for the reader. Maps, tables, and figures
offer an engaging format to assist in the identification of patterns and trends
in the data. Many of these graphics are new to or updated for the eleventh
edition. As noted, boxes throughout the chapters howcase
s the innovative, the
unusual, and the insightful in state and local politics. Lists of states appear in
each chapter and facilitate comparisons across the states. Key Terms are bold-
faced, defined in the margins, and listed at the end of each chapter. References
to websites in the end-of-chapter list of Internet Resources encourage student
curiosity, engagement, and individual research.
The Content of the Eleventh Edition

As in the first 10 editions, this book provides thorough and completely updated
coverage of state and local institutions, processes, and policies. The chapters
blend the findings from the latest political science and public policy research
with issues and events from the real world. It is intended to be a core text.
and In Chapter
explore the 1, we introduce
theme of capacitythe functions
and of nonnational
responsiveness. governments
The growing diversity
in the United States and the contemporary controversy dubbed “culture wars”
are featured in the chapter. Federalism’s central importance is highlighted in
Chapter 2, which traces the twists and turns of the federal system, from the
scribblings of the Framers to the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncements on
x Preface
the Tenth and Eleventh amendments. The fundamental legal underpinnings

of state governments—their constitutions—are discussed in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 explores citizen participation and elect ions (including the 2014
elections), focusing on the increased access of citizens and the expectations
they have for government. Chapter 5, “Political Parties, Interest Groups,
and Campaigns,” gets at subnational politics—the fascinating real world of
candidates, lobbyists, organizations, and money.
Coverage of the three branches of government—legislative, executive,
and judicial—is updated and reflects the institutional changes each branch
has undergone recently. The intent of Chapter 6 is to show how legislatures
actually work. In addition, responses of state legislatures to the institutional
challenge posed by term limits are explored. Governors are featured in
Chapter 7, including those who have misbehaved in various ways, and the
issue of gubernatorial power is emphasized. Chapter 8, “Public Administra-
tion: Budgeting and Service Delivery,” offers updated coverage of privatization
as a strategy for improving government and the delivery of public services, as
well as new material on e-government and budget transparency. In Chapter 9,
the policy-making role of judges, judicial federalism, judicial accountability,
and judicial selection mechanisms are emphasized.
Local governments are not treated as afterthoughts in this book. Two chap-
ters focus solely on localities: Chapter 10 is devoted to the multiple types and
structures of local government and Chapter 11 to leadership and governance,
including new leadership approaches of mayors and city councils. Subsequent
chapters consider localities within the context of the states: Chapter 12 focuses
on the political and practical issues linking the two levels—and the resultant
tensions between them—and Chapter 13 emphasizes the growing interdepen-
dence of state and local financial systems. Chapter 12 specifically tackles the
issue of land use and urban sprawl, including New Urbanism approaches.
Chapter 13 offers a comprehensive synthesis of the principles and political
economy of taxation and spending and an overview of the strategies used by
state and local governments to cope with the aforementioned economic crash.
Five policy chapters illustrate the diverse postures of state and local gov-
ernments in responding to change and citizen demands. The roles of states
and localities are different in each policy area. Chapter 14 examines economic
development initiatives in the context of interstate and interregional compe-
tition for jobs and business. Chapter 15 focuses on the ever-important topic
of public education; it includes examples of many of the most recent edu-
cation reform efforts, including school choice plans, No Child Left Behind,
homeschooling, and charter schools. Criminal justice policy is the subject of
Chapter 16. Crime statistics have been updated, as have some of the newest
initiatives for community policing, law enforcement technology, and crim-
inal data applications. Social welfare and health care policy are featured in
Chapter 17. Welfare

gaping holes traps arehealth
in the national identified,
systemstate
areprograms
examined,aimed at plugging
and the effects of the
the
Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) are explained. Finally, Chapter 18 covers a
wide range of environmental topics such as sustainability, waste management,
hydraulic fracturing, and global climate change. Of special interest are some
of the success stories in “greening” states and localities.
Preface xi
Resources for Instructors

Instructor Companion Web Site for State and Local Government, 11e
ISBN: 9780357367414
This Instructor Companion Website is an all-in-one multimedia online
resource for class preparation, presentation, and testing. Accessible through
Cengage.com/login with your faculty account, you will find available for down-
load: book-specific Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentations; a Test Bank compat-
ible with multiple learning management systems; and an Instructor Manual.
The Test Bank, offered in Blackboard, Moodle, Desire2Learn, Canvas, and
Respondus formats, contains Learning Objective-specific multiple-choice,
true/false, and essay questions for each chapter. Import the test bank into your
learning management system to edit and manage questions and to create tests.
The Instructor’s Manual contains chapter-specific learning objectives, an
outline, key terms with definitions, and a chapter summary. Additionally, the
Instructor’s Manual features a critical thinking question, a lecture launching
suggestion, and an in-class activity for each learning objective.
The Microsoft PowerPoint presentations are ready-to-use, visual outlines
of each chapter. These presentations are easily customized for your lectures.
Access the Instructor Companion Website at www.cengage.com/login.
IAC Cognero for State and Local Government, 11e ISBN: 9780357367452
Cengage Learning Testing Powered by Cognero® is a flexible online system
that allows you to author, edit, and manage test bank content from multiple
Cengage Learning solutions, create multiple test versions in an instant and
deliver tests from your LMS, your classroom, or wherever you want. The test
bank for State and Local Government, 11e contains Learning Objective-specific
multiple-choice, true/false, and essay questions for each chapter.
Acknowledgments
First, we thank the reviewers of the eleventh edition, who provided us with
many thoughtful observations and examples:
Jeff Dense, Eastern Oregon University
Tobias O. Vogt, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Tassi Dalton, East Tennessee State University
Troy Hinrichs, California State University, San Bernardino
Joshua Mitchell, University of Arkansas
William E. Kelly, Auburn University
Elaine Thompson, Blue Ridge Community College
Arlene Sanders, Delta State University
We have incorporated their suggestions into this edition whenever possible.
We also extend our appreciation to our partners at Cengage. Finally,
Lauren Gerrish, Sheila
Dana Edmunds, Moran, and
Emily Hickey, Sarah Cole,Kumar
Manoj Erika contributed
Hayden, Martina Umunna,
in many special
ways to the final product, as usual.
A. O’M. B.
R. C. K.
C. P. F. S.
Abou t the Au thor
Ann O’M. Bowman (Ph.D., University of

Florida) is professor and holder of the Hazel
Davis and Robert Kennedy Endowed Chair in the
Bush School of Government and Public Service
at Texas A&M University. She teaches courses
in state and local politics and policy, intergov-
ernmental relations, environmental policy and
management, and public policy process. Her
research interests revolve around questions of
institutional change, policy adoption and imple-
mentation, and intergovernmental dynamics.
Co u r t e s y o f A n n O ’ M . Bo w m a n
She has published numerous books and articles
on these topics over the years.
Richard C. Kearney (Ph.D., University of

Oklahoma) is retired as professor of political
science and public administration at North
Carolina State University. His career also
included lengthy teaching, research, and
administrative responsibilities at East Carolina
University, the University of Connecticut, and
the University of South Carolina. His research
interests include comparative state politics and
policy, labor relations, and human resource
management policy. He has published prolif-
ically on these and related topics. He lives in
Co u r t e s y o f Ri c h a r d C. Ke a r n e y
Raleigh and Beaufort, NC.
Carmine P. F. Scavo (Ph.D., University of

Michigan) is emeritus professor of political
science at East Carolina University where he has
taught since 1985. He taught undergraduate and
graduate courses in state and local government,
intergovernmental relations, policy analysis,
and methodology. His research interests include
e-government, homeland security and disaster
management, intergovernmental relations, and
voting behavior. He has published a number of
books and articles on these and other topics in
Co u r t e s y o f Ca r m i n e P . F . Sc a v o
his career.
xii
1 State and Local
Governments:
New Directions
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum delivers

his 2019 State of the State address.
With appropriate oratorical flourishes, the

governor of North Dakota, Doug Burgum,
delivered his 2019 State of the State message to
Learning Objectives
the people of the Peace Garden State. Although
LO 1-1 To recognize the importance of state parts of the speech were specific to North
and local governments in Dakota—references to the Fargo-Moorhead
contemporary America.
Area Diversion Project and the planned
LO 1-2 To identify ways in which states and
localities have increased their Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, for
capacity. example—many of the themes resonated
LO 1-3 To recognize the challenges that beyond the state’s borders. Fiscal health, job
states and localities confront on a creation, and educational improvement were
daily basis. topics in countless gubernatorial addresses
A P I m a g e s / T o m St r o m m e / T h e Bi s m a r c k T r i b u n e
LO 1-4 To recognize how changing public throughout the country. Governor Burgum’s
attitudes influence government
tone was upbeat and determined as he refer-
behavior.
enced both North Dakota’s past and its future:
LO 1-5 To understand the changing
demographic landscape in the “This Sunday, January 6th, marks the 100th
United States. anniversary of the passing of Theodore
Roosevelt. By immersing himself in the rugged,
beautiful andauntamed
himself into bold and Badlands, he transformed
fearless leader—whose
later actions transformed our nation and the
2 Chapter 1 State and Local Governments: New Directions
world. As we stand at the cusp of this new era, let us seize this
opportunity for North Dakota to transform our image of
ourselves—to reach beyond any doubts and self-imposed
limitations. Now is the time to dream bold dreams—to build
those dreams—and to create lasting legacies.”1
Spirited exhortations such as these were echoed in one
state capitol after another in 2019, 2020, and 2021. In North
Dakota and elsewhere, state and local governments are
indeed tackling difficult problems and seeking innovative
solutions to contemporary issues.
LO 1-1
To recognize the
Studying State and Local Governments
importance of state
and local governments
in the Twenty-First Century
in contemporary The study of state and local governments has typically received short shrift in
America.
the survey of U.S. politics.2 Scholars and journalists tend to focus on glamor-
ous imperial presidents, a rancorous and gridlocked Congress, an indepen-
dent and powerful Supreme Court, and the interactions of the three branches
of national government in issues such as impeachment of a president.
National and international issues capture the lion’s share of media attention.
Yet, state and local politics are fascinating precisely because they are up close
and personal. True, a governor seldom gets involved in an international peace
conference, and state legislatures rarely debate the global narcotics trade. But
the actors and institutions of states and localities are directly involved in our
day-to-day lives. Education, job growth, climate change, health care, and
crime are among the many concerns of state and local governments. And these
issues affect all of us. Table 1.1 provides a sample of new state laws that took
effect in 2020, laws that touch our daily lives.
From Sewers to Science: The Functions of State

and Local Governments
State and local governments are busy. They exist, in large measure, to make
policy for and provide services to the public. This is no easy task. Nonnational
governments must perform efficiently, effectively, and fairly; and they must do
so with limited financial resources. An efficient government is one that maxi-
mizes the output (services) from a given input (resources). A government oper-
ates effectively if it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Another expectation is
that government
manner. It is no function
wonder, fairly—that its services
then, that state be delivered
and local in anconstantly
governments equitable
experiment with new programs and new systems for producing services, all the
while seeking efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. For instance, the recent mas-
sive restructuring of the Arkansas state government was intended, according to
the governor, to set “Arkansas on the right course to better serve her citizens.”3
The quest for better functioning government never ends. A 2011 report found
Chapter 1 State and Local Governments: New Directions 3
Table 1.1 A Sample of New State Laws That Took Effect in 2020
STATE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAW

Ariz ona Mandates training for six th- through tw elfth-grade teachers on
spotting the signs of student suicidal behavior.
California Makes it illegal to discriminate in the w orkplace n
ad schools
based on an individual’ s natural hairsty le or hair
tex ture. Protected
hairsty les include Afros, braids, tw ists, cornrow and
s, dreadlocks.
Illinois Legaliz es sale and use of recreational marijuana for people 21
and older, making Illinois the eleventh state to do so.
Massachusetts Automatically registers to vote an eligible resident w hen they get
a driver’ s license or health insurance in the state.
New York Allow s state residents w ho w ere adopted to have unrestricted
access to their birth certificates once they turn 18.
North Carolina Creates a new felony—D eath by Distribution—t hat targets drug
dealers w ho contribute to a user’ s overdose death.
Ohio Requires the teaching of cursive w riting in first g
rade through fifth.
Oregon Allow s bicyc lists to slow dow n rather than come to a complete
stop at stop signs and traffic signals.
Tex as Requires employ ees of higher education institutionsto report to
university authorities sex ual harassment, sex ualsault,
as stalking,
and date rape incidents committed against an employee or student.
Washington Requires children to ride in booster seats in cars until they are at
least four feet, nine inches tall. When practical, children must ride
in the back seat until age 13.
Sources: Associated Press, “These New Laws Are Taking Effect in North Carolina,“ Spectrum News,
www.spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2019/11/30/-raise-the-age--juvenile-initiative-in-nc
-begins-in-december (December 1, 2019); Jon Campbell, “New Laws for New York in 2020: Boating Safety,
Farmworker Rights, Minimum Wage and More,“ Democrat & Chronicle, www.democratandchronicle
.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/12/26/new-laws-ny-2020-cash-bail-reform-farmworker-rights-birth
-certificate/2736813001/ (December 26, 2019); KHOU Staff, “These Are New Texas Laws Going into Effect
This Week That You Need to Know About,“ www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/new-texas-laws
-january-1/285-e9606fd0-9541-41f4-b070-c7904ba401bd (January 3, 2020); Erin Robinson, “New Car Seat
Laws Coming to Washington State in 2020,“ www.kxly.com/new-car-seat-laws-coming-to-washington
-state-in-2020/ (December 24, 2019); Erica Stapleton, “Here Are Some Arizona Laws Taking Effect in 2020,“
www.12news.com/article/news/politics/here-are-some-arizona-laws-taking-effect-in-2020/75-6cee8394
-e2c0-46d7-8587-800d11bee54c (December 21, 2019); Matt Stout, “A Look at the New Mass. Laws that Will
Affect You in 2020, Boston Globe, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2020/01/01/new-year-brings-slightly-higher
-wages-and-lower-taxes/sTHu9L7D73aSxs6K7WrTRO/story.html (January 1, 2020); Lorraine Swanson, “25 New
Illinois Laws in 2020 That Could Impact Your Life,“ patch.com/illinois/across-il/25-new-illinois-laws-2020-could
-change-your-life (January 2, 2020); Brandon Urey, “2020 Oregon Laws: Bicycle Stops and Plastic Bags,“ www
.corvallisadvocate.com/2019/2020-oregon-laws-bicycle-stops-and-plastic-bags/ (December 29, 2019); and
PhilWillon and Alexa Díaz, “California Becomes First State to Ban Discrimination Based on One‘s Natural Hair,“
LosAngeles Times, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-pol-ca-natural-hair-discrimination-bill-20190703-story.html
(July 3, 2019).
that, over a three-year period, nearly half of the states had eliminated or consol-
idated numerous state departments, agencies, boards, and commissions in an
effort to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government.4
Innovation has become a buzzword for state and local government.
Different groups, ranging from the Council of State Governments (CSG)5—a
national nonpartisan nonprofit organization—to Bloomberg Philanthropies6—a

nonprofit organization created by former New York City mayor and billionaire
Michael Bloomberg—to Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic
Governance and Innovation7—an advocate for innovative approaches in state
and local governing. Each of these groups has a somewhat different approach
to innovation, but they share a common focus on issues such as alternative
energy, infrastructure investment, workforce development, cybersecurity,
international trade, and others. Although many of the innovations deal with
public policies, some of the new ideas these organizations address are internal
to government operations and are intended to make government function
more effectively. These include the use of social media, the adoption of
evidence-based practices, the analysis of data with geographic information
system technology, and the use of logic models to achieve desired program
results. The unifying characteristic among these innovations is governmental
willingness to try something new. And good ideas travel; that is, they are often
adopted by other states or localities. For example, after the city of Houston
debuted a new web tool, “My Tax Dollars at Work,” other cities followed suit.
Using this tool, homeowners can quickly find out how much of their local
property taxes go to various city departments such as public safety, trash and
recycling pick up, parks and recreation services, land development, and city
administration.
Our Approach
The argument of this book is that states and localities have the capacity to play
central roles in the U.S. federal system. Capacity refers to a government’s
ability to respond effectively to change, to make decisions efficiently and
responsibly, and to manage conflict.8 Thus, capacity is tied to governmental
capability and performance. In short, states and communities with more
evidence-based
practices capacity work better than those with less capacity.
Making decisions But what factors make one government more capable than another? Gov-
based on the best ernmental institutions such as the bureaucracy matter. The fiscal resources of
research findings
a jurisdiction and the quality of its leadership make a difference. Much of the
available.
research on capacity has focused on the administrative dimension of govern-
capacity ment performance, evaluating items such as financial management, informa-
The ability of
government to tion technology, human resources, and strategic planning. In a 2008 study of
respond effectively state government performance, the highest overall scores went to Utah, Vir-
to change, make ginia, and Washington (each state received an A–) and Delaware, Georgia,
decisions efficiently
and responsibly, and
Michigan, Missouri, and Texas (with grades of B+).9 Earlier evaluations of
manage conflict. forty large counties showed that Fairfax, Virginia, and Maricopa, Arizona, had
the best performance grades. Among thirty-five cities examined, Austin, Texas,
jurisdiction
The territorial range and Phoenix, Arizona, were the leaders. Other factors being equal, we would
of government
authority; expectlow-scoring
high-scoring states, counties, and cities to produce “better” government
than jurisdictions.
“jurisdiction” is
A survey in Iowa showed another side to governance. When asked about
sometimes used as a
synonym for “city” or the characteristics of good government, Iowans put trustworthiness, ethics,
“town.” financial responsibility, and accountability at the top of the list.10 Residents
of the Hawkeye State are not unusual; all of us want our institutions and
leaders to govern honestly and wisely. As political scientist David Hedge
reminds us, better government is found in jurisdictions that are responsible
and democratic.11 But states and localities face significant challenges as they
govern. Complex, often contradictory forces test the most capable of
governments. As we have seen recently, trends in the national economy play
out at the subnational level. Problems in one jurisdiction can spill over into
nearby communities. State and local governments need all the capacity they
can muster and maybe even a little bit of luck to meet those challenges.
Sometimes states and localities fall short. For instance, in 2017, a budget
imbroglio between the Republican governor and the Democratic legislature
in New Jersey led to the partial shutdown of state government—including
state parks and beaches on the Jersey Shore—for the busy three-day Fourth of
July holiday. Obviously, this was not one of the shining moments in the
annals of state government. That the public often displays a little skepticism
about governmental performance is not surprising.
Federalism, with its overlapping spheres of authority, provides the con-
text for state and local action. Intervention by the national government in the
affairs of a state or local government is defensible, even desirable in some
cases. For example, the environmental problems of the 1960s and 1970s
exceeded state and local governments’ ability to handle them, so corrective
action by the national government was generally welcomed. However, some
federal actions are greeted less enthusiastically. The Real ID Act was enacted
by Congress in 2005 to upgrade the security of state-issued driver’s licenses
and other forms of identification. Real ID requires states to maintain data-
bases of the documents used to prove their residency. The act threatened to
prohibit any IDs that did not meet federal security requirements from being
used for federal purposes such as boarding commercial aircraft or accessing
federal facilities. As of 2020, forty-eight of the fifty states have fully complied
with Real ID requirements. Only Oklahoma and Oregon have not yet com-
plied. For many years, some states either resisted implementation (e.g., Maine,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina) or sought extensions to the federally mandated
timetable (e.g., California, Kentucky, North Carolina). States cited costs and
the possibility of data insecurity as reasons for early noncompliance. The fed-
eral government responded by extending the deadline for full implementa-
tion of Real ID requirements. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
latest federal action extends the deadline for enforcing Real ID provisions to
October 1, 2021.12
Our approach takes into account intergovernmental relations (i.e., the rela-
tionships among the three levels of government)—particularly, the possibilities
for cooperation and conflict. Jurisdictions (national, state, or local) possess
federalism
policy-making authority over specific, but sometimes overlapping, territory. A system of
They work
confront innumerable situations in which boundaries blur, and they government in which
powers are divided
must together to accomplish an objective. However, cooperation in some
between a central
cases is countered by conflict in other instances. Each level of government (national) government
tends to see problems from its own perspective and design solutions accord- and regional (state)
ingly. In sum, both cooperation and conflict define the U.S. federal system. governments.
LO 1-2
To identify ways in The Capacity of States and Localities
which states and
To appreciate where state and local governments are today, it is important to
localities have
increased their understand where they were just sixty to seventy years ago. With notable
capacity. exceptions, states and their local governments in the 1950s and 1960s were
havens of traditionalism and inactivity. As a result of tradition, inertia, and a
general unwillingness to change the status quo, many states were character-
ized by unrepresentative legislatures, glad-handing governors, and a hodge-
podge court system. Public policy tended to reflect the interests of the elite;
delivery of services was frequently inefficient and ineffective. According to
former North Carolina governor Terry Sanford, the states “had lost their con-
fidence, and people their faith in the states.”13 No wonder that, by compari-
son, the federal government appeared to be the answer, regardless of the
question. In fact, political scientist Luther Gulick proclaimed, “It is a matter
of brutal record. The American State is finished. I do not predict that the states
will go, but affirm that they have gone.”14
Those days are as outmoded as a 1950s-era black-and-white television.
States and their local governments have proved themselves capable of design-
ing and implementing “an explosion of innovations and initiatives.”15 As a
result, even many national leaders have embraced the roles of states and local-
ities as laboratories for policy experimentation. California’s sweeping new
data privacy law that allows consumers to access the private data that compa-
nies maintain on them and to have that data deleted is indicative of this. As
one commentator noted, “Since it’s a lot more work to create a separate infra-
structure just for California residents to opt out of the data collection industry,
these requirements will transform the internet for everyone.”16
The blossoming of state governments in the 1980s—their transformation
from weak links in the federal chain to viable and progressive political units—
resulted from several actions and circumstances, as discussed in the next
section.17 In turn, the resurgence of state governments has generated a host of
positive outcomes. During the 1990s, states and localities honed their capac-
ity and became proactive rather than reactive. They faced hard choices and
creatively crafted new directions. A word of caution is necessary, however. The
challenges of governance can be great, and not all states enjoy the same
level of capacity. Furthermore, fiscal stresses suc h as those endured by
state governments in the second decade of the twen ty-first century sorely
tested the ability of even the most capable states to function effectively.
How States and Localities Increased Their Capacity

Several factors contributed to the resurgence of the states. U.S. Supreme Court
decisions in the 1960s on legislative apportionment made for more equitable
representation; the extension of two-party competition in the 1970s to states
formerly dominated by one party gave voters more choices. At the same time,
proactive
states and localities expanded their lobbying presence in the nation’s capital,
An anticipatory
condition, as opposed exerting influence on the design and funding of intergovernmental
to a reactive one. programs.
Most important, state governments quietly and methodically reformed

themselves by modernizing their constitutions and restructuring their institu-
tions. Since the 1970s, more than three-quarters of the states have ratified new
constitutions or substantially amended existing ones. Formerly thought of as
the “drag anchors of state programs” and as “protectors of special interests,”18
these documents have been streamlined and made more workable. Even in
states without wide-ranging constitutional reform, tinkering with constitu-
tions is almost endless thanks to the amendment process. Nearly every state
general election finds constitutional issues on the ballot.
States have also undertaken various internal adjustments intended to
improve the operations of state governments.19 Modernized constitutions and
statutory changes have strengthened the powers of governors by increasing
appointment and removal powers and by allowing longer terms, consecutive
succession, larger staffs, enhanced budget authority, and the power to reorga-
nize the executive branch. Throughout the country, state agencies are staffed
by skilled administrators, and the bureaucracy itself is more and more demo-
graphically representative of the public. Annual rather than biennial sessions,
more efficient rules and procedures, additional staff, and higher salaries have
helped make reapportioned state legislatures more professional, capable, and
effective. State judicial systems have also been the targets of reform; examples
include the establishment of unified court systems, the hiring of court admin-
istrators, and the creation of additional layers of courts.
Increased Capacity and Improved Performance

The enhanced capacity enjoyed by state and local governments has generated
a range of mostly positive results. The five factors discussed next reinforce the
performance of states and localities.
Improved Revenue SystemsEconomic downturns and limits on taxing

and spending have caused states to implement new revenue-raising strategies
to maintain acceptable service levels. Some states also granted local govern-
ments more flexibility in their revenue systems. South Carolina, for example,
now allows counties the option of providing property-tax relief to residents in
exchange for increasing the local sales tax.
As a rule, state governments prefer to increase user charges, gasoline
taxes, and so-called sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and only reluctantly
do they raise sales and income taxes. Over time, revenue structures have been
redesigned to make them more diversified and more equitable. State rainy
day funds, legalized gambling through state-run lotteries and pari-mutuels,
and extension of the sales tax to services are examples of diversification strat-
rainy day funds
egies. The seventeen states where alcohol is sold only in state-run stores are Money set aside when
reviewing how they do business, making changes to increase sales and reve- a state’s finances are
nue, and considering privatizing alcohol sales, as Washington did in 2011.20 healthy for use when
Legalization and taxation of marijuana sales has added substantial amounts state revenues decline.
Formally called
of revenue to state coffers.21 Exemptions of food and medicine from con- “budget stabilization
sumer sales taxes and the enactment of property-tax breaks for poor and funds.”
elderly people characterize efforts at tax equity. These revamped revenue

structures helped states respond to and recover from the budget crises they
confronted during the Great Recession of 2008–2011. The COVID-19 pan-
demic of 2020 has again sorely tested state government revenue systems by
dramatically increasing expenditures on health, safety, and other services
while reducing tax revenues.
States continue to tinker with their revenue-raising schemes. One success-
ful foray into creative revenue raising has been the specialty license plate.
Maryland, for example, has generated millions of dollars over the years with
its “Treasure the Chesapeake” plate. Monies generated by the plates are ear-
marked for special programs—in this case, water quality monitoring and ero-
sion control in the Chesapeake Bay. Nearly all states now offer specialty plates.
In New York, for instance, owners can equip their cars, for an extra fee, with
license plates honoring their favorite professional sports teams or NASCAR
drivers. A brand-new approach to generating cash for states comes from the
world of retail stores: the marketing of official gift cards. For example, both
Kentucky and Ohio sell gift cards that can be used at state park locations for
various park services and merchandise.
Another effort of enterprising localities is to sell merchandise. Los Ange-
les County has marketed coroner toe tags as key chains; Tucson hosts online
auctions of surplus property. New York City, which loses thousands of street
signs (Wall Street is especially popular) to souvenir-stealing tourists, now
sells replicas. But the revenue generated by those actions is dwarfed by
Chicago, which has sold (actually, leased for seventy-five years) its parking
meter system to an investment bank for $1.16 billion. As these examples
show, states and localities are willing to experiment when it comes to
revenue enhancement.
Expanding the Scope of State OperationsState governments have

taken on new roles and added new functions. In some instances, states are
filling in the gap left by the national government’s de-emphasis of an
activity; in other cases, states are venturing into uncharted terrain. It was
states that designed the first family leave legislation to give workers time
off to care for newborn babies and ailing relatives, the first “Three Strikes”
laws that mandated long prison sentences for habitual offenders, and the
first Amber Alert systems to broadcast information about abducted chil-
dren. The federal government eventually followed suit with a national
family leave act, a federal Three Strikes law, and a national Amber Alert
system. In addition, states have taken the initiative in ongoing intergov-
ernmental programs by creatively using programmatic authority and
resources. Prior to federal welfare reform in the mid-1990s, several states
had established workfare programs and imposed time limits on the receipt
of welfare
federal benefits, provisions that were at the center of the subsequent
legislation.
States persist in expanding their scope of operations, whether it is Cali-
fornia’s venture into stem-cell research or Florida’s strides into bioterror read-
iness. Hawaii has begun development of an extensive network of plug-in
spots where electric cars can be recharged; New Mexico is a partner in a new
commercial spaceport facility that it hopes will become the center for space
tourism. Fifteen states (and the District of Columbia) currently have legalized
marijuana for recreational, as opposed to medicinal, use (another states
allow broadly interpreted medical use of marijuana). In short, states are
embracing their role as policy innovators and experimenters in the U.S.
federal system.
Local governments are also pushing the policy envelope. For instance,
in 2012, San Francisco took a bold step when it launched its K2C program
to provide college savings accounts to every kindergarten student in the
city school district; Cuyahoga County, Ohio, followed suit the next year. In
an effort to offer more transit options to the public, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
became the first city in the United States to establish an automated bike-
share system, with two dozen bikes at three solar-powered stations; New
York City took a slightly different approach by creating a public-private
partnership for its Citi Bike system. Las Vegas won awards for its use of
Amazon’s Alexa to provide information to tourists and residents through
its My Vegas platform. Some cities have begun to address the problem of
food deserts—the absence of grocery stores and fresh food in low-income
neighborhoods—by incentivizing investment by food retailers and by
supporting urban agriculture. Cities such as Tulsa, Birmingham, and New
Orleans are attempting to use their local zoning codes to restrict
convenience stores that don’t offer fresh meat, fruits, and vegetables from
locating in certain areas.22 These examples make an important point: Local
governments are not sitting idly by as problems emerge; instead they
actively seek solutions.
Faster Diffusion of InnovationsAmong states, there have always been

leaders and followers; the same is true for local governments. Now that
states and localities have expanded their scope and are doing more policy
making, they are looking more frequently to their neighbors and to similar
places for advice, information, and models.23 As a result, successful solu-
tions spread from one jurisdiction to another. For example, Florida was the
first state to create a way for consumers to stop telephone solicitations. By
1999, five more states had passed laws letting residents put their names on
a “do-not-call” list for telemarketers. Seven additional states adopted simi-
lar legislation over the next two years before Congress enacted a national
statute.24
Local-level innovations spread rapidly, too. Education and environmen-
tal protection offer many examples of this phenomenon. When Miami-Dade
County, Florida, hired a private company to run a public elementary school,
other school districts hoping to improve quality and cut costs quickly did
the
suchsame. Initialschools.
as charter experiments with of
The issue privatization spawned
climate change other
began innovations
to be addressed
at the local level in 2005, when the mayor of Seattle became the first local
official to commit his city to a plan to reduce the emission of greenhouse
gases. Within the last fourteen years, some 1,066 mayors of other U.S. cities
It ’ s Yo u r Tu r n
Should Governments Have Innovation Offices?
In comparison to businesses and corporations that governments from Austin to Pittsburgh are creating
are often seen as engines of innovation, some folks innovation offices. These offices are tasked w ith dis-
see state and local governments as slow -moving and covering new and more efficient w ays for government
reactive entities. In an effort to change that percep- to do its job.
tion and to make government more proactive, city
PROS CONS
Having an innovation office could help cities become Creating a new office in city government means that
leaders in discovering new ideas and approaches money w ill need to be spent on that office. That
rather than follow ers of others’ innovations. money has to come from somew here, w hether it is
from new revenue or diverted spending.
Internally focused innovation offices can lead to cost There are no guarantees of cost savings. Generating
savings and efficiency improvements in government. cost savings depends on the capabilities of the
people employe d in the innovation office and their
leadership . . . and mayb e even some good luck.
Ex ternally focused innovation offices can lead to
new government services or better w ays to provide
ex isting services. These offices may also identify new
partnership opportunities.
have joined the climate change bandwagon.25 In 1985, San Francisco

enacted a city ordinance that forbade city officials from assisting federal
immigration officers, thus becoming the first “sanctuary city.” There are now
some 500 cities that call themselves sanctuaries for immigration purposes,
a designation that is highly controversial in local, state, and national poli-
tics. It is worth noting, of course, that the diffusion of new ideas depends in
large part on their fit with local conditions and their effectiveness in address-
ing local problems.
Obviously, state and local governments learn from one another. Com-
munication links, including social media such as Facebook and Twitter,
have become extensive. A state might turn to nearby states when searching
for policy solutions. Regional consultation and emulation are logical: Sim-
ilar problems often beset jurisdictions in the same region, a program used
in a neighboring state may be politically more acceptable than one from a
distant state, and organizational affiliations bring state and local adminis-
trators together with their colleagues from nearby areas. However, research
has shown that states also borrow ideas from peer states, that is, states that
are like them in important ways such as ideological leaning or economic
base.26 In the search for solutions, states and localities are increasingly
inclusive.
Ch i p So m o d e v i l l a / G e t t y I m a g e s N e w s / G e t t y I m a g e s
A group of governors holds a press conference in Washington, D.C.,
after meeting with former President Obama.
Interjurisdictional CooperationAccompanying the accelerated flow of

innovations has been an increase in interjurisdictional cooperation. States
are choosing to confront and resolve their immediate problems jointly. A
similar phenomenon has occurred at the local level with the creation of
regional organizations to tackle area-wide problems collectively.
Interjurisdictional collaboration takes many forms, including informal
consultations and agreements, interstate committees, legal contracts, recipro-
cal legislation, and interstate compacts. For example, all fifty states and the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have a mutual
agreement to aid one another when natural disasters such as hurricanes,
earthquakes, and forest fires strike.
States often cooperate when it comes to consumer protection litigation.
Five states—Mississippi, Minnesota, West Virginia, Florida, and Massachu-
setts—were among the first to band together to share information and design
tactics in their lawsuits against tobacco companies in the mid-1990s; by 1998,
thirty-seven other states had joined in the successful effort to recover the Med-
icaid costs of treating tobacco-related diseases.27 In analogous fashion, states
are suing opioid manufacturers over the costs associated with treating addic-
tion. Oklahoma recently won its suit against the consumer product manufac-
turer Johnson & Johnson while similar lawsuits by twenty-five other states
proceed against OxyContin® manufacturer Purdue Pharma.28 Increased juris-
dictional cooperation fosters a healthy climate for joint problem solving. In
addition, when state and local governments solve their own problems, they
protect their
states are power more
becoming and authority within
comfortable the federal
working system.
with one It appears
another. that
The begin-
ning of the twenty-first century was indeed historic: States were engaged in
more cooperative interactions than ever before.29
Increased National-State ConflictAn inevitable by-product of more

capable state and local governments is intensified conflict with the national
government. One source of this discord has been federal laws and grant
requirements that supersede state policy; another is the movement of states
onto the national government’s turf. National-state conflict is primarily a
cyclical phenomenon, but contention has increased in recent years. The
issue of unfunded mandates—the costly requirements that federal
legislation imposes on states and localities—has been particularly
troublesome. In an effort to increase the visibility of the mandates issue,
several national organizations of state and local officials sponsored a
“National Unfunded Mandate Day” in the mid-1990s. Making a strong case
against mandates, then-governor George Voinovich of Ohio stated,
“Unfunded mandates devastate our budgets, inhibit flexibility and
innovation in implementing new programs, pre-empt important state
initiatives, and deprive states of their responsibility to set priorities.”30
Congress responded in 1995 by passing a mandate relief bill that requires
cost-benefit analyses of proposed mandates; however, the law contains
loopholes that have weakened its impact.
Some of the disputes pit a single state against the national government,
as in Nevada’s fight to block the U.S. Energy Department’s plan to build a
nuclear fuel waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of
Las Vegas. Another example is the effort by Texas to continue its use of a flex-
ible permitting process to regulate industrial air pollution, a process that has
been challenged repeatedly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). In other conflicts, the national government finds itself besieged by a
coordinated, multistate effort, for example, when twelve states sued the U.S.
EPA in 2014 over the regulation of carbon emissions from existing coal plants,
or when twenty states challenged the federal Affordable Care Act in 2010.31
Cities, counties, and states designating themselves as sanctuaries—forbidding
law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials in iden-
tifying or detaining those who may have arrived in the United States illegally—
have created disputes between the federal government and state and local
governments. In 2018, the U.S. Justice Department sued the state of California
over three state “sanctuary” laws that the Justice Department alleges violate
the U.S. Constitution, and President Donald Trump has attempted to block
federal grants-in-aid funding from being awarded to state and local govern-
ments that fail to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities.32
National-state conflicts are resolved (and sometimes intensified) by the
federal judicial system. Cases dealing with alleged violations of the U.S. Con-
stitution by state and local governments are heard in federal courts and
decided by federal judges. Sometimes the rulings take the federal government
into spheres long considered the purview of state and local governments. For
instance, within
cases before the space
the U.S. of two
Supreme days
Court. instate
The 2009, Arizona
was bothinwon
successful and lost
its argument
that state spending on language training for non-English-speaking students
should not be subject to federal supervision, but it was unsuccessful in
defending the actions of school officials who conducted a strip search of a
middle-school student suspected of drug possession.
Challenges Facing State and Local Governments LO 1-3

To recognize the
Increased capacity does not mean that all state and local problems have been challenges that states
solved. A Gallup poll released in 2016 asked a sample of residents in each of and localities confront
on a daily basis.
the fifty states about their level of confidence in their state government to
handle problems facing the state.33 On average, 57 percent of a state’s residents
said that they had confidence in their state government. This level of confi-
dence is respectable but certainly not stellar. Moreover, the average masks
substantial variation across the states ranging from North Dakota’s 81 percent
to Illinois’ 25 percent. A look at Table 1.2 shows that confidence in state
government tends to be higher in less-populated states and in states located
Table 1.2 Confidence in State Government to Handle Problems
PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
STATE CONFIDENT STATE CONFIDENT
Alabama 48 Montana 72
Alaska 64 Nebraska 74
Ariz ona 49 Nevada 61
Arkansas 63 New Hampshire 68
California 54 New Jersey 41
Colorado 66 New Mex ico 48
Connecticut 39 New York 46
Delaw are 65 North Carolina 55
Florida 57 North Dakota 81
Georgia 59 Ohio 59
Haw aii 55 Oklahoma 60
Idaho 63 Oregon 55
Illinois 25 Pennsyl vania 46
Indiana 55 Rhode Island 33
Iow a 68 South Carolina 59
Kansas 45 South Dakota 71
Kentucky 54 Tennessee 63
Louisiana 44 Tex as 64
Maine 48 Utah 70
Maryl and 56 Vermont 60
Massachusetts 66 Virginia 58
Michigan 48 Washington 54
Minnesota 69 West Virginia 51

Mississippi 55 Wisconsin 49
Missouri 50 Wyo ming 76
Source: Jeffrey M. Jones, “Illinois Residents Least Confident in Their State Government,“ www.news.gallup.com/poll/189281/illinois
-residents-least-confident-state-government.aspx (access December 17, 2019).
in the upper plains region, but undoubtedly other factors contribute to these
poll numbers. The percentages serve as a reminder that even though states
(and localities) have made many strides forward, there is plenty of room for
improvement. Three tough challenges for nonnational governments include
fiscal stress, interjurisdictional conflict, and political corruption.
Fiscal StressThe most intractable problem for states and localities involves
money. State and local finances are vulnerable to cyclical peaks and troughs
in the national economy as well as to occasional changes in public finance.
The national economic recession of 2008–2011 hit states and localities
hard—very hard—and the impact on governmental budgets was significant.
Connecticut governor Jodi Rell did not mince words when she said, “These
are the worst financial times any of us can remember . . . let’s face it, it’s
scary.”34
The fiscal impact of the Great Recession was deep and prolonged, with
four consecutive years in which states faced significant mismatches between
revenues and spending. During that time, state lawmakers scrambled to close
budget gaps that, according to estimates by the National Conference of State
Legislatures, totaled $510.5 billion.35 State rainy day funds grew precariously
drier as legislators looked to them for short-term relief. In an effort to save
money, some prisons were closed in Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, North
Carolina, and Washington; in some states, funding for education was reduced,
and cash assistance for low-income families was cut; in others, state agencies
were downsiz edand employee wages were frozen. State leaders sought new
revenues also: Income tax rates were increased in California, Hawaii, Illinois,
and New York; sales tax increases were enacted in Arizona, California, and
Massachusetts, among other states. Facing the largest deficit of any state, the
governor of California battled with the legislature over several money-saving
proposals, including “selling the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, San Quentin
State Prison and other state property, eliminating welfare benefits for 500,000
families, terminating health coverage for nearly 1 million low-income children
and closing 220 of the state’s parks.”36
Local governments felt the recessionary heat as well; Dallas, one of the
country’s largest cities, provides an example. To close a $190.2 million deficit
in its budget, the city of Dallas made cuts in numerous city services, including
street repairs, arts funding, library hours, and park maintenance; in addition,
nearly 800 city employees lost their jobs.37 The story was much the same in
many other localities: reduce costs as painlessly as possible and, if necessary,
increase fees. Some relief was forthcoming when Congress passed the $787
billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, informally known as the
federal stimulus plan, but many states and communities felt the fiscal pinch
well into 2012. Now, cash-strapped states and localities are confronting a
“new normal”
dollars at theirin which they
disposal.38 are expected to provide public services with fewer
downsiz e The COVID-19 pandemic provides another threat to state and local gov-
To reduce the size
and cost of something, ernment. To slow the spread of the disease, governors and mayors ordered
especially government. businesses to shut down operations. While this “flattening of the curve”
resulted in reducing the daily number of new disease cases and so helped
health care systems from becoming overloaded, it also resulted in much
higher unemployment rates in March and April and concomitant reductions
in sales, income, and in some places, property tax revenues. In response to
this, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act in March 2020. This act established a $150 billion Coronavirus
Relief Fund to provide grants to help state and local governments cope with
the unexpected additional expenses associated with the public health
emergency. In addition, The Families First Coronavirus Response Act
increased by $35 billion the federal funding share to the Medicaid program,
the joint federal-state program that provides health insurance to lower
income people. The actual financial impact of COVID-19 is expected to be
much greater than the total of this federal assistance, meaning difficult
budgetary decisions by state and local governments in 2020 and afterward.
Increased Interjurisdictional ConflictTension is inherent in a federal

system because each of the governmental entities has its own set of interests,
as well as a share of the national interest. When one state’s pursuit of its
interests negatively affects another state, conflict occurs. Such conflict can
become destructive, threatening the continuation of state resurgence. In
essence, states end up wasting their energies and resources on counterpro-
ductive battles among themselves.
Interjurisdictional conflict is particularly common in two policy areas
very dear to state and local governments: natural resources and economic
development. States rich in natural resources want to use these resources in a
manner that will yield the greatest return. Oil-producing states, for instance,
levy severance taxes that raise the price of oil. And states with abundant water
supplies resist efforts by arid states to tap into these supplies. The most serious
disputes often occur among neighboring states. One illustration is the pro-
tracted dispute between California and six other western states over water
allocations from the Colorado River, an issue made even more contentious
since California experienced a drought for much of the 2010s. In short, the
essential question revolves around a state’s right to control a resource that
occurs naturally and is highly desired by other states. Resource-poor states
argue that resources are in fact national and should rightfully be shared
among states.
In the area of economic development, conflict is extensive because all
jurisdictions want healthy economies. Toward this end, states try to make
themselves attractive to business and industry through tax breaks, regulatory
relaxation, and even image creation. (The Controversies in States and Local-
ities box explores how jurisdictions seek to reverse negative images and to
rebrand themselves more positively.) Conflict arises when states get
involved in bidding
that actions taken bywars—that is, matched
one state are when an and
enterprise
exceededis so
byhighly valued
another. The rebrand
An effort to change
recent searches by Amazon—for a second headquarters facility in addition how a state or city
is perceived by the
to Seattle—and Apple—for a new campus—pitted states and cities against public, to create a new
each other in attempting to attract the 50,000 jobs to be created by Amazon image of a place.
and the 15,000 by Apple. States hungry to attract these facilities assembled
packages of incentives such as below-cost land, tax concessions, and subsi-
dized job training in their efforts to attract Amazon, Apple, and other large
companies. Virginia reportedly granted Amazon more than $750 million in
incentives to get the new headquarters facility located in Arlington.39 Simi-
lar incentives were offered by many cities to attract Apple; eventually the
company opted to locate in Austin, Texas, where incentives totaled less than
$50 million.40
A particularly fascinating interjurisdictional contest involves the recurring
rounds of U.S. military base closures and consolidations. Military bases are
economic plums that no jurisdiction wants to lose. Thus, states mount public
relations efforts to protect local bases and to grab jobs that will be lost in
other states. Politics and lobbying are supposed to play no role in the
Pentagon’s decisions about which bases will remain open and which ones will
close, but states prefer to hedge their bets. In the most recent round of base
closings, Texas devoted $250 million to defending its bases, and Massachu-
setts allocated $410 million for its own bases. As one observer put it, “It is a
war of all against all.”41 In 2017, President Trump asked Congress to authorize
a new study of base closings, which would report its recommendations
in 2021.
Political CorruptionCorruption exists in government, which is no great

surprise. Most political systems can tolerate the occasional corrupt official,
but if corruption becomes commonplace, it undermines governmental
capacity and destroys public trust. Public reaction ranges from cynicism and
alienation (corruption as “politics as usual”) to anger and action (corrup-
tion as a spur to reform). A survey found that the more extreme the corrupt
act (a city clerk embezzling $100,000 versus a police officer accepting free
food at a restaurant), the more harsh the public’s judgment.42 Even so,
mitigating motives or circumstances tend to reduce the public’s outrage
(e.g., a public official taking a bribe but using the money to pay his sick
child’s hospital bills). But governmental scandals have been linked tenta-
tively to another negative effect—a slowdown in economic growth. Research
on states found that federal corruption convictions are associated with
declines in job growth primarily because, from a business perspective, cor-
ruption creates uncertainty and inflates costs.43
States and localities have taken great precautions to reduce the amount
of wrongdoing occurring in their midst. Government has much more
transparency than it ever has before, with more openness and more rules.
But the statutes and policies are only as good as the people whose behavior
they regulate. Unfortunately, examples of corrupt behavior are not hard to
transparency
A characteristic find. For instance, in 2018, Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway pled
of a government
that is open and guilty
a localtobusiness
federal bribery charges
operator, and, related
in 2019,toJohn
contracts he who
Green, illegally steered
served to
as the
understandable, one
elected sheriff of Philadelphia from 1988 to 2010, was convicted of bribery
in which officials are
accountable to the and other financial offenses he committed during his twenty-two years in
public. office.
Co n t r o v er s ies in St at es an d Lo calit ie
Creating an Image, Rebranding a Place
What image best captures a state’s essential being? many have launched promotional campaigns to
Ohio, for example, calls itself the Buckeye State, but rebrand themselves with more positive images.
most Americans do not know what a buckeye is. (It is Jersey City, New Jersey, which has been termed
a shrub or tree of the horse chestnut family and it pro- unfashionable” by some, scruffy” by others,
duces buckeye nuts. There are a lot of these trees in recently developed a campaign to change people’s
Ohio.) Consider New Hampshire, which stamps the perception of the city, and ideally, encourage them
motto Live Free or Die” on its license plates. A few to consider the city as a place to live, visit, and start
years ago, some legislators advocated replacing the businesses. The city’s new slogan is Make It Yours,”
uncompromising phrase with the word scenic, arguing which is incorporated into an inventive logo and
that the state needed to project a more caring image. even has a social media presence with a hashtag,
In other words, New Hampshire wanted to rebrand #JCMakeItYours. The total budget for the city’s
itself. rebranding effort? $1.2 million.
The North Dakota legislature took the image
issue to new heights when it seriously entertained a Critical Thinking Questions
resolution that would have dropped the word North 1. Every state has an image. Take a moment to think
from the state’s name. The name North Dakota was about your state, its culture, and its icons. What is
said to summon images of snowstorms, howling your state’s image? Has your state created a brand
winds, and frigid temperatures.” Simply going with for itself? If it has, do you think that it is fitting, or
Dakota, a word that means friend” or ally” in the can you think of a better brand for your state? If
Sioux language, would project a warmer image of the your state does not have a brand, what would be a
state, supporters claimed. (The state senate ultimately good brand for it?
defeated the name-changing resolution.) Image and
2. Corporations such as Coca-Cola, Apple, and
reputation are serious business: West Virginia’s gover-
Disney spend millions of dollars each year main-
nor protested an Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirt that
taining their brands. Should public money go
featured a map of the state and the phrase It’s all
toward states’ creation and maintenance of brands
relative in West Virginia.” Not exactly the image the
for themselves?
state wanted to project, to be sure. An aide to the gov-
ernor said, It really hinders our ability to market the 3. Do you think that brands are effective in changing
state.” In response, the company decided to pull the the perceptions of a state?
shirt from its shelves. Sources: Dale Wetzel, “Dakotans Consider Dropping ‘North‘ to Thaw
Images are not trivial. They matter because State‘s Image,“ The Missoulian (June25, 2001), p. B4; Tony Dokoupil,
they project and reflect public perceptions, which “Hillbilly No More? West Virginia‘s Image Makeover,“ Newsweek,
can be both accurate and inaccurate. They offer a www.newsweek.com/hillbilly-no-more-west-virginias-image
-makeover-82641 (March 10, 2009); and Stuart Elliott, “A New Effort
shorthand understanding of a place, a slice of the from a ‘New‘ Jersey City Urges, ‘Make It Yours,‘“ New York Times,
whole. States and communities have become much www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/business/media/a-new-effort-from
more conscious of their images in recent years, and -a-new-jersey-city-urges-make-it-yours.html?_r=0 (October6, 2014).
A pair of economists researching corruption in the states asked statehouse

reporters—folks who
the overall level of are familiar
corruption with the
in their stategoings-on
comparedinwith
the capitol—to assess
other states. 44
At
the top of the list was Rhode Island, followed by Louisiana and New Mexico.
States at the bottom of the comparative corruption list included the Dakotas,
Colorado, and Maine. Others have speculated that capital cities isolated from
major population centers tend to breed more corruption. At the local level,
data on the number of federal convictions for public corruption over a
thirty-five-year period showed the Chicago metropolitan area to be the most
corrupt in the nation.45 Clearly, states and localities are not corruption-free;
however, the amount of corruption is relatively low, given the vast number of
public officials serving in nonnational levels of government. Still, even a whiff
of scandal can undermine public confidence in government and sap govern-
mental capacity.
LO 1-4
To recognize how
The People: Designers and Consumers
changing public
attitudes influence
of Government
government behavior. A book on state and local governments is not only about places and govern-
ments but also about people—the public and assorted officeholders—and the
institutions they create, the processes in which they engage, and the policies
they adopt. Thus, this volume contains chapters on institutions, such as leg-
islatures, and on processes, such as elections; it also discusses policies, such as
those pertaining to education. But in each case, people are the ultimate focus:
A legislature is composed of lawmakers and staff members who deal with
constituents; elections involve candidates, campaign workers, and voters (as
well as nonvoters); and education essentially involves students, teachers,
administrators, parents, and taxpayers. In short, the word people encompasses
an array of individuals and roles in the political system.
LO 1-5 Ethnic-Racial Composition

To understand the
changing demographic More than 330 million people live in the United States. Some can trace their
landscape in the heritage back to the May flow , er
whereas others look back only as far as a recent
United States.
naturalization ceremony. Very few can claim indigenous (native) American
ancestry. Instead, most Americans owe their nationality to some forebear who
came here in search of a better life or—in the case of a significant minority,
the descendants of slaves—to ancestors who made the journey to this country
not out of choice but by force. The appeal of the United States to economic
and political refugees from other countries continues, with people from
Mexico, Central America, Asia, and eastern Africa among the most recent
arrivals.
The United States is a nation of immigrants, and therefore ethnic richness
and cultural diversity abound. Official U.S. Census figures for 2010 put the
white population at 72 percent, the black population at 13 percent, the Latino
population at 16 percent, the Asian population at 5 percent, and the Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native population at 1 percent.46 (The numbers total
more than 10038

Approximately percent because
million, of people
or 13 percent, whonation’s
of the check multiple categories.)
population was born
in another country, with 53 percent of the foreign born from Latin America
and another 28 percent from Asia.47 The 2020 census is expected to show the
population of the United States increasing at a slower rate than previous
decades. The minority population—especially those identifying with two or
more racial or ethnic groups—will increase much more rapidly than will the
white population. Whereas the white non-Latino population will increase by
only 1 percent, the African American population will increase by 10 percent
and the Latino population by 23 percent. More importantly, immigration—
which has always been a major factor in the increase in racial and ethnic
change in the United States—will be outstripped by natural increase (births).
This will be particularly pronounced in Latino, African American, and multi-
racial populations.48
One aspect of immigration—illegal immigration—is putting the words
from the sonnet inscribed on the Statue of Liberty (“Give me your tired, your
poor, your huddled masses”) to a severe test. Although accurate numbers are
hard to come by, one recent estimate by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security placed the number of undocumented immigrants at roughly 12 mil-
lion, of which approximately 55 percent were from Mexico.49 The issue of
illegal immigration has divided the American public into two camps. One
camp argues that people who are in the United States illegally receive public
benefits, take scarce jobs, and pay little in taxes. This group favors legislative
proposals that clamp down on illegal immigration by requiring verification
of workers’ legal status and restricting the issuance of drivers’ licenses to U.S.
citizens and legal immigrants. The other camp contends that undocumented
workers actually contribute more in taxes than they consume in public ser-
vices; moreover, they take on jobs that others do not want and therefore con-
tribute to economic growth. This group tends to support legislation that
includes a “path to citizenship” and the “DREAM Act,” which makes high
school graduates and those who have served honorably in the military eligible
for citizenship, despite their illegal immigration status. Emblematic of these
differing perspectives, five states explicitly prohibit unauthorized immigrant
students from receiving in-state tuition at state colleges or universities whereas
twenty states offer these benefits to them.
A 2010 Arizona law required immigrants to carry documents proving they
were in the United States legally, and it gave local police broad power to ques-
tion and arrest anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Critics
claimed that the law was discriminatory and would lead to ethnic profiling.
Upon enactment, the law unleashed a flurry of demonstrations, both support-
ive and oppositional, initially in Arizona and eventually around the country.
Some jurisdictions such as Los Angeles threatened to boycott the Grand Can-
yon State in retaliation for the law, whereas several other states rallied around
Arizona. Similar laws were passed in 2011 in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana,
South Carolina, and Utah. The federal government filed suit against the Ari-
zona law, and in 2012 parts of the law were struck down by the U.S. Supreme
Court, although the provision allowing police to investigate the immigration
status of individuals who were stopped or arrested was sustained. Further
action
issued aonseries
immigration occurred
of executive ordersat
inthe federal
2012 level when
implementing thePresident
DeferredObama
Action
for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). Obama’s executive orders intended
to protect some undocumented immigrants from deportation. DACA allowed
some who had been brought into the United States illegally when they were
children to have deportation proceedings deferred for a renewable two-year
period. President Trump reversed much of this in 2017, stating he want to

phase out DACA unless Congress acted to pass the DREAM Act or similar
legislation. Trump also encouraged U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce-
ment (ICE) to aggressively use the 287(g) Program to deputize state and local
law enforcement officers in the enforcement of federal immigration law.50
Trump’s actions on DACA were challenged in federal court. In June 2020, the
U.S. Supreme Court, while refusing to take a position on the overall legality
of DACA, ruled that the manner by which the Trump administration sought
to end the program was arbitrary and capricious. The Trump administration
is seeking other ways to change or end the DACA program.51
Clearly, ethnicity and culture still matter, despite the image of America as
a melting pot. Researchers have found that a state’s racial and ethnic diversity
goes a long way in explaining its politics and policies.52 For example, racial
diversity has been shown to have effects on education, welfare, and health
policies in the states.53 Looking toward the future, census projections for
the year 2060 estimate a nation of approximately 417 million people, with the
non-Latino white population dropping to less than 50 percent of the total, the
African American population increasing slightly to 14 percent, the Latino
population reaching 29 percent, and an Asian population of 12 percent.54 If
these population trends hold, state politics and policy in the mid-twenty-first
century will be affected.
Population Growth and Migration

As a whole, the United States grew by almost 6 percent from 2010 to 2019.
Disaggregating the data by state reveals several trends. Reflecting the pattern of
the previous decade, high rates of growth occurred in the western and southern
states; substantially slower growth rates characterized the Northeast and to a
lesser extent, the Midwest. The South grew by 9.3 percent, the West by 8.7 per-
cent, the Midwest by 2.0 percent, and the Northeast by 1.1 percent. (The map
in Figure 1.1 displays the percentage change in each state’s population from
2010 to 2019.) Among the states, Utah, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida
continued to outpace the growth in other states, with rates of 15.5 percent, 14.9
percent, 14.1 percent, 14.0 percent, and 13.9 percent, respectively. The District
of Columbia was another high-growth jurisdiction with a 16.6 percent increase.
Four states—West Virginia, Illinois, Connecticut, and Vermont—lost popula-
tion (3.3 percent, 1.3 percent, 0.4 percent, and 0.3 percent, respectively) during
Sunbelt the ten-year period. Five states experienced extremely low rates of growth:
An unofficial region
Mississippi by 0.2 percent, New York by 0.3 percent, Rhode Island by 0.5 per-
of the United States,
generally consisting cent, Pennsylvania by 0.7 percent, and New Jersey by 0.9 percent. In terms of
of the South and the absolute increase from 2010 to 2019, the number of Texans rose by 3.7 million,
West. Florida added 2.6 million, and California added 2.2 million new residents.55
Frostbelt
An unofficial region For cities, the population trends for the four-year period are equally com-
pelling. Higher rates of growth were much more prevalent in cities in the
of the United States,
Sunbelt region than in cities of the Frostbelt. The growth leaders among
generally comprising
the Northeast and the large cities (defined as cities of 200,000 population or more) between 2010
Midwest. and 2019 were Irvine, California, and Seattle, Washington. Both of these cities
NH ME
WA
VT
ND
MT MA
MN
NY
OR
ID SD WI
MI
WY RI
PA NJ
IA CT
NE OH DE
IL IN
NV
WV MD
UT VA
CO
KS KY
MO DC
CA NC
TN
OK SC
AZ AR
NM
GA
AL
MS
TX LA
FL
AK
10% or more 0.0% to 1.99%
5.0% to 9.9% Less than 0.0%—

HI lost population
2.0% to 4.99%
Figu r e 1.1
Percent Change in State Population, 2010–2 019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010–2019,” www.census.gov/data/tables
/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html (December 30, 2019).
experienced population increases of more than 30 percent. Seattle was the

only non-Sunbelt city in the top ten fastest growing cities. At the other end of
the spectrum are large, older industrialized cities of the Frostbelt like Detroit
and Saint Louis that each lost more than 5 percent or Toledo that lost more
than 4 percent.56
Migration—moving from one state to another—may be on the minds of
many folks these days. A recent Gallup poll showed that, on average, 33 percent
of a state’s residents want to move to another state.57 The question was
phrased like this: “Regardless of whether you w illmove, if you had the
opportunity, would you like to move to another state, or would you rather
remain in your current state?” Illinois had the dubious distinction of landing
at the top of the out-migration list: Half of the residents said they would leave
the state if they had the opportunity. Connecticut and Nevada were close
behind at 49 percent and 47 percent, respectively. At the other end of the
spectrum were states like Montana, Hawaii, and Maine, where only 23 percent
of the current residents would leave if they could.
Population changes carry economic and political consequences for state
and local governments. As a general rule, power and influence follow
population. A state’s representation in the U.S. Congress and its votes in the
Electoral College are at stake. As a result of the 2010 census, Texas picked up
four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, while Florida added two seats.
Six other states (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and
Washington) gained a single seat. This means, of course, that other states lost
seats. New York and Ohio each lost two seats, with eight other states losing
one apiece (Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania).58 The number of congressional districts in the rest
of the states did not change. For the 2020 census, seven states most likely will
gain seats in Congress—Texas (three seats); Florida (two); and North Caro-
lina, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Oregon (one each). Meanwhile ten
states most likely will lose seats—Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and—for the first
time ever—California.59 The stakes are high for local governments, too. As a
central city’s population size is eclipsed by its suburban population, a loss in
the city’s political clout typically occurs. Aware of the importance of “the
count,” many cities will spend thousands of dollars on media advertisements,
text messages, and social networking websites encouraging their residents to
mail in their 2020 Census forms.
Political Culture
One of the phrases that a new arrival in town may hear from long-time
residents is “We don’t do things that way here.” Political culture—the
attitudes, values, and beliefs that people hold toward government—is the
conceptual equivalent of simply saying “It’s our thing.”60 As developed by
political culture political scientist Daniel Elazar in the 1960s, the term refers to the way people
The attitudes, values,
and beliefs that
think about their government and how the political system operates. Political
people hold toward culture is a soft concept—one that is difficult to measure—yet it has remained
government. quite useful in explaining state politics and policy.
individualistic According to Elazar, the United States is an amalgam of three major political
political culture cultures, each of which has distinctive characteristics. In an individualistic
A set of attitudes, political culture, politics is a kind of open marketplace in which people par-
beliefs, and sentiments
in which politics ticipate because of essentially private motivations. In a moralistic political
is thought of as a culture, politics is an effort to establish a good and just society. Citizens are
marketplace in which expected to be active in public affairs. In a traditionalistic political culture,
people compete to politics functions to maintain the existing order, and political participation is
achieve private goals.
confined to social elites. These differing conceptions about the purpose of gov-
moralistic political ernment and the role of politics lead to different behaviors. Confronted with
culture
A set of attitudes, similar conditions, officials in an individualistic community would resist initi-
beliefs, and sentiments ating a program unless public opinion demanded it; leaders in moralistic areas
in which politics is would adopt the new program, even without pressure, if they believed it to be
viewed as an effort to in the public interest; and traditionalistic rulers would initiate the program only
establish a good and
just society. if they thought it would serve the interests of the governing elite.
Political culture is a factor in the differences (and similarities) in state
traditionalistic
Apolitical culture
set of attitudes, policy.
tendency Research has found
toward policy that moralistic
innovation, states demonstrate
whereas traditionalistic statesthe greatest
exhibit the
beliefs, and sentiments 61
least. In economic development policy, for example, political culture has
in which politics is
been shown to influence a state’s willingness to offer tax breaks to businesses.62
viewed as a method
of maintaining the Other research has linked political culture to state environmental policy and
existing order. successful state implementation of welfare reform.63
Today, few states are characterized by pure forms of these cultures. The
mass media have had a homogenizing effect on cultural differences; migration
has diversified cultural enclaves. This process of cultural erosion and synthesis
has produced hybrid political cultures. For example, Florida, once considered
a traditionalistic state, now has many areas in which an individualistic culture
prevails and even a moralistic community or two. In an effort to extend
Elazar’s pioneering work, researcher Joel Lieske has used race, ethnicity, and
religion to identify contemporary subcultures.64 With counties as the building
blocks and statistical analysis as the method, he identified eleven distinctive
regional subcultures. A state like Ohio, which Elazar characterized as individ-
ualistic, becomes a mix of Germanic, rural/urban, global, and heartland”
counties in Lieske’s formulation. Very few states are dominated by a single
subculture, except perhaps Utah, by a Mormon subculture, and New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont, by an Anglo-French subculture.
Political culture is not the only explanation for why states do what they
do, of course. Socioeconomic characteristics (income and education levels, for
example) and political structural factors (the amount of competition between
political parties) also contribute to states’ and communities’ actions. In fact,
sorting out the cause-and-effect relationships among these variables is a
daunting job. For example, why do some states pass more laws to regulate
handguns than other states do? Emily Van Dunk’s study found that several
factors were important, although the crime rate and partisanship, surprisingly,
were not among them.65 States with nontraditional political cultures adopt
more handgun regulations, as do states with more women in the legislature
and those with populations that are more urbanized and nonwhite. In general,
political factors, socioeconomic characteristics, and the particulars of a specific
problem combine to produce government action.
A P I m a g e s / D o u g M c Sc h o o l e r
Protestors march to Indiana’s state capitol after passage of the

Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2015.
Culture Wars
In 2004, when San Francisco’s mayor ordered city clerks to remove all refer-
ences to gender on local marriage license applications, it opened the door for
same-sex marriages to take place in the city. As lesbian and gay activists and
supporters celebrated, many politically conservative groups denounced the
action and promised legal challenges and political repercussions for the
mayor. This type of social conflict over morality issues is known informally as
culture wars, or “morality politics.” And these culture wars are defining the
politics of many communities and states. Besides gay rights, battlegrounds in
the culture wars include abortion, pornography, and prayer in schools.
These issues tend to involve deeply held values, sometimes connected to
religion, and they are less about economics than are many political issues.
According to political scientist Elaine Sharp, culture wars have several distinc-
tive features.66 Values are highly salient to people, eliciting passionate reactions;
they mobilize people across different neighborhoods and racial and ethnic
groups; and the ensuing political activism often takes unconventional forms,
such as demonstrations. Recent research has confirmed the presence of wide
disagreements in public opinion on fundamental values such as freedom,
equality, individualism, and patriotism, among others.67 Throughout the coun-
try, battle lines have been drawn over issues such as more restrictive abortion
laws and displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. But the most
volatile culture war during the past two decades involved same-sex marriage.
As of 2010, more than thirty-five states had Defense of Marriage Acts
(DOMAs) in their statutes, defining marriage as between one man and one
woman, but by 2015, same-sex marriage had been legalized in thirty-seven
states. The explanation for the dramatic shift in public policy had a lot to do
with pressure from gay and lesbian rights activists on state legislatures, and
rulings by federal and state courts striking down DOMAs as a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection and due-process clauses.68 In
2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage.
Even as public attitudes became more supportive of same-sex marriage, many
religious conservatives maintained their staunch opposition. The issue came
to a head over whether state officials and private businesses can use their
religious beliefs as a justification for refusing service to customers. In North
Carolina, several civil magistrates—who are empowered to marry people in
that state—refused to marry same-sex couples, citing a state law that allowed
magistrates to refrain from officiating such marriages if they had “sincerely
held religious objections.”69 Utah and Mississippi have similar laws, and the
issue has arisen in Oregon, Kentucky, and other states.70 Federal courts are
considering the issue and it is likely the U.S. Supreme Court eventually will
be required to decide the controversy.
Thepersonal
against COVID-19 pandemic
freedom. created its
Governors andown culture
mayors war posing
closed public health
many businesses to
reduce the spread of the disease, but these closures became controversial as
culture wars
they went on for several months. As the original goal of flattening the curve
Political conflicts that
emerge from deeply of new infections seemed to have been achieved, pressure grew on officials to
held moral values. reopen the economy. By May and June 2020, many businesses had reopened,
but controversy surrounded sporting events, bars, health clubs, churches and
similar venues where large numbers of people would gather in close contact.
In several states, health club operators reopened their clubs in violation of
governors’ orders for them to remain closed. Local law enforcement officials
were conflicted over enforcing policy on the one hand or supporting free
enterprise on the other. North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper’s orders to keep
health clubs and gyms closed were challenged by the North Carolina General
Assembly which passed legislation allowing them to open. Cooper vetoed the
legislation; health club and gym operators filed suit to overturn the closure
orders. The iconic symbol of the COVID culture war is perhaps the face mask.
Some states and localities made wearing face masks mandatory while others
advised people to wear masks when they went out in public. Many people
wore masks as protection against infecting others with the coronavirus, while
others refused to wear masks citing their individual rights to do so.
Linking Capacity to Results

State and local governments have strengthened their position in the American
federal system. On a regular basis, they tackle some of the most pressing prob-
lems facing the country.71 The interaction of three unique characteristics of our
fifty-state system—diversity, competitiveness, and resiliency—both facilitates
and complicates their task. Consider the diversity of the United States. States and
their communities have different fiscal capacities and different voter preferences
for public services and taxes. As a result, citizens and businesses are offered real
choices in taxation and expenditure policies across different jurisdictions.
Diversity is tempered, however, by the natural competitiveness of a federal
system. No state can afford to be too far out of line with the prevailing think-
ing on appropriate levels of taxes and expenditures because citizens and busi-
nesses may opt to relocate. In essence, each jurisdiction is competing with
every other jurisdiction. Such competition over the price and performance of
government stabilizes the federal system.
The third characteristic, resiliency, captures the ability of state governments
to recover from adversity. This feature was certainly put to the test during the
economic downturn of 2008–2011. The stresses of that period compelled
states to retrench and rethink; the fresh policy ideas that resulted were success-
ful in some instances, unsuccessful in others. But the larger point is that state
governments squared their shoulders to meet the challenges head on. Resil-
iency is the key.
As one astute observer of the U.S. governmental scene has commented,
“Over the past decade, without ever quite admitting it, we have ceased to rely
on Congress (or the federal government, for that matter) to deal with our
most
lenge serious public
of dealing problems.
with problems. . that
. [T]he
nostates
otherhave
levelbeen accepting the
of government is chal-
han-
72
dling.” Return to the first page of this chapter and reread Governor Burgum’s
inspirational words. The twenty-first century began full of challenges, but
states and their local governments are taking charge. In the final analysis, that
is what increased capacity is all about: results.
Chapter Recap
✔
✔
• State and local governments are directly • Several persistent challenges confront states
involved in our daily lives. and localities: fiscal stress, interjurisdictional
competition, and political corruption.
• The story of states and localities over
the past two decades has been one • The United States is becoming more racially
of transformation. They have shed and ethnically diverse. Sunbelt states tend
their backward ways, reformed their to outpace the rest of the nation with their
institutions, and emerged as capable and population growth.
proactive.
• An outbreak of culture wars is redefining the
• State resurgence is exemplified in improved politics of some communities and states.
revenue systems, the expanded scope of state
• As a whole, the states are diverse, competitive,
operations, faster diffusion of innovations,
and resilient. Their increased capacity to
more interjurisdictional cooperation, and
govern effectively was sorely tested in the
increased national-state conflict.
first decade of the twenty-first century.
Key Ter m s
evidence-based practices (p. 4) rebrand (p. 15) moralistic political culture
capacity (p. 4) transparency (p. 16) (p. 22)
jurisdiction (p. 4) Sunbelt (p. 20) traditionalistic political
federalism (p. 5) Frostbelt (p. 20) culture (p. 22)
proactive (p. 6) political culture (p. 22) culture wars (p. 24)
rainy day funds (p. 7) individualistic political culture
downsize (p. 14) (p. 22)
In t er n et Res o u r ces
Nearly all states use the URL suffix gov in their Since 1933, the CSG has collected and dissem-
online addresses, such as Ohio.gov or mt.gov. inated information about state institutions,
Florida does something a little different with its policies, and trends. Its website is www.csg.org.
URL: www.myflorida.com.
At www.census.gov, the website of the U.S.
A website that offers a wealth of policy informa- Bureau of the Census, you can find historical,
tion about the states, along with links to mul- demographic data on states and localities.
tistate organizations, national organizations
The website for State Politics and Policy Quarterly
,
of state officials, and state-based think tanks
a scholarly journal that publishes research on
is www.stateline.org, established by the Pew
important state-level questions, is spa.sagepub
Center on the States. The Center’s own website
.com. Also, the journal State and Local Government
contains useful
and trends information on state policies
at www.pewtrusts.org/en/topics/ Review contains the latest research on issues in the
states and localities. Its URL is slg.sagepub.com.
state-policy.
2 Federalism
and the States:
Sorting Out
Roles and
Responsibilities
U.S. Border Patrol officer apprehends illegal child
immigrant in Ariz ona.
A single broad and enduring issue in American

federalism transcends all others: What is the
proper balance of power and responsibility
Learning Objectives
between the national government and the
LO 2-1 To describe the history and states? The debate over this profound
evolution of American federalism question was first joined by the Founders in
from the writings of the Framers
and the growth of national power
pre-constitutional days and argued between
to the contemporary time. the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It
LO 2-2 To recognize the changing balance continues today in the halls of Congress, the
of formal and informal power and federal courts, and the state and local
responsibility between the national governments, over issues ranging from the
government and the states. mundane to the profound. For instance, which
LO 2-3 To describe the principal models of
level of government is responsible for
federalism that attempt to explain
the nature of federal–state–local addressing illegal immigration? And what
relationships. should the respective responsibilities of
LO 2-4 To explain the complex nature and federal, state, and local governments be?
tools of intergovernmental
J o h n M o o re / G e tty Im a g e s
financial relations.
N e w s / G e tty Im a g e s
LO 2-5 To recognize
of friction andfinances
conflictas a source
between the
three levels of government.
28 Chapter 2 Federalism and the States: Sorting Out Roles and Responsibilities
Over the last twenty years, illegal immigration across the southwestern U.S.
border has shifted from a composition of largely adult Mexican males to one
with many more Central American families. In 2000, some 97 percent of the
1.6 million people apprehended trying the cross the border into the United
States were single Mexican nationals. By 2019, 56 percent of the apprehensions
were families, with people from Guatemala and Honduras outnumbering peo-
ple from Mexico.1 To detain families entering the United States illegally, the
federal government has separated children from their parents because children
and parents cannot be held together in the same detention facilities. This has
resulted in a growing number of unaccompanied children requiring shelter,
which the U.S. government initially filled by contracting with state and local
governments that agreed to provide facilities for them. However, in opposition
to federal immigration policies, a number of state and local governments have
terminated their contracts and are urging local organizations to end their con-
tracts as well. As a county commissioner in Texas put it, “the federal govern-
ment made their bed with its policies, so let them sleep in it.”2
States are contesting the boundaries of federalism through varied
approaches—some highly restrictive, and others much less so. Florida, Ten-
nessee, and eighteen other states offer in-state college tuition to undocu-
mented immigrants, and most states avert their eyes from evidence of local
businesses employing undocumented workers. Undocumented immigrants
can be issued drivers’ licenses in many states, and in Oregon and New York,
they are eligible for health care benefits. Other states come down hard on
undocumented immigrants. In Arizona, for example, they are denied all social
services and aggressively pursued for arrest. At least seven states expressly pro-
hibit them from receiving in-state tuition assistance; other states will not issue
them drivers’ licenses.3
When Arizona, Alabama, and other states enacted laws that placed severe
legal restrictions on undocumented immigrants and their employers, the U.S.
Justice Department secured court orders blocking parts of those laws. Provisions
in the Arizona, for example, required immigrants to carry papers showing they
were legally admitted into the United States, made it illegal for undocumented
aliens to seek work without authorization, required state and local law
enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of those they stopped or
detained, and criminalized being in the United States without proper
authorization. A founding principle of our country is the right of the national
government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp its powers, and in
these particular cases, the federal government referred to that principle when
it asserted that a “state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, invalidating large parts of the Arizona state
.4 Still, the current situation is a
law in the 2010 case of Ariz ona v. United States
crazy quilt of state laws, some of which—as in Arizona or Alabama—require
local law enforcement

in California officials to verify
or Colorado—forbid localarrestees’ citizenship
law enforcement while
from others—as
doing so.
Complex and highly politicized issues that Congress fears to act upon—
like immigration control—tend to expose the soft underbelly of federalism.
Every response is intergovernmentally complex, with respective roles and
Chapter 2 Federalism and the States: Sorting Out Roles and Responsibilities 29
responsibilities that need to be sorted out, or ultimately resolved, by the U.S.

Supreme Court. Emotional issues like illegal immigration have spawned a
critical analysis of American federalism that has significant implications for
all levels of government. These types of events and conflicts help define U.S.
federalism and exhibit both its strengths and weaknesses. As a system for
organizing government, federalism has important consequences that often
affect our political and personal lives in ways both direct and hidden.
The Concept of Federalism

In a nation—a large group of people organized under a single, sovereign
government and sharing historical, cultural, and other values—powers and
responsibilities can be divided among different levels of government in three
ways: through a unitary government, a confederation, or a federal system. To
understand our federal system, we must know how it differs from the other
forms of government.
Unitary, Confederate, and Federal Systems

The large majority of countries (more than 90 percent) have a unitary system
of government, in which the central government may create or abolish
regional or local governments as it sees fit. These subgovernments can exercise
only those powers and responsibilities granted to them by the central
government. In France, the United Kingdom, Chile, Japan, and many other
countries with unitary systems, the central government is strong, and the
regional or local jurisdictions are weak. In the United States, the states
themselves function as unitary systems in their relationships with local
governments.
A confederation is the opposite of a unitary system. In a confederation
unitary sy stem
the central government is weak, and the regional governments are powerful. One in which all
The regional jurisdictions establish a central government to deal with areas of government authority
mutual concern, such as national defense and a common currency, but they is derived from a
severely restrict the central government’s authority in other areas. If they see central government.
fit, they may change or even abolish the central government. The United confederation
States began as a confederation, and the southern states formed a new A league of sovereign
states in which
confederacy following secession in 1861. a limited central
A federal system falls somewhere between the unitary and confederate government exercises
forms in the method by which it divides powers among levels of government. few independent
powers.
It has a minimum of two governmental levels, each of which derives its powers
directly from the people and can act directly on the people within its federal sy stem
jurisdiction without permission from any other authority. Each level of A means of
dividing the power
government is supreme in the powers assigned to it, and each is protected by and functions
apower
constitution from being
and functions destroyed by between
of government the other.aThus, federalism
central divides
government andthea of government
between a central
government and a
specified number of geographically defined regional jurisdictions. In effect,
specified number of
people hold dual citizenship, in the national government and in their regional geographically defined
government. regional jurisdictions.
30 Chapter 2 Federalism and the States: Sorting Out Roles and Responsibilities
In the U.S. federal system, the regional governments are called states. In
others, such as Canada, they are known as provinces. Altogether, there are
approximately twenty federal systems in the world.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

As it has evolved in the United States, federalism is a reasonably effective
system of government. But, as immigration policy illustrates, it is not perfect,
nor is it well suited to the circumstances of most other nations. Ironically,
federalism’s weaknesses are closely related to its strengths.
StrengthS WeAkneSSeS
1. A federal system helps manage social and 1. If such conflicts are not addressed satisfacto-
political conflict. It broadly disperses political rily, they can eventually lead to regional or
pow er w ithin and among governments, ethnic conflict on a fearsome scale.
enabling national, as w ell as regional and local,
concerns to reach the central government.
Many venues, or “ democratic safety valves,”
ex ist for resolving conflicts before they reach
the crisis stage.
2. Federalism promotes administrative efficiency. 2. Federalism presents problems in coordinating

The w ide variety of services demanded by citi- action across governments and boundaries.
zen s is delivered more efficiently w ithout a Picture try ing to get 90,000 squaw king and
large central bureaucracy . From public ele- flapping chickens to move in the same direction
mentary education to garbage collection, the at once. Confusion and deadly delay s in
government closest to the problem seems to responding to issues such as a disease
w ork best in adapting public programs to local pandemic and illegal immigration illustrate this
needs. point.
3. Federalism encourages innovation. States and 3. Federalism’s many points of involvement can
localities can customiz e their policies to encourage obstruction and delay and result in
accommodate diverse demands and needs— ineffective national government programs and
and, indeed, such heterogeneity flourishes. priorities. Duplication and confusion can be
New policies are constantly being tested by the the result. Fifty sets of law s on banking and
more than 90,000 government “ laboratories” lending practices, firearms regulation, and
that ex ist throughout the country , thus further medical marijuana can make crossing state
encouraging ex perimentation and flex ibility . lines an ex ercise in comparative public law .
4. A federal system maximizes political participa- 4. Such broad participation encourages local
tion in government. Citiz ens have opportunities biases inimical to national interests. Problems
to participate at all three levels of government in locating nuclear and hazar dous w aste
through elections, public hearings, and other disposal facilities readily illustrate this
means. The local and state governments fill dilemma.
almost one million offices in regular elections,
serving as valuable political training camps for
aspiring public leaders. The great majority of
presidents and congressional representatives
first w et their feet in state or local politics.
Chapter 2 Federalism and the States: Sorting Out Roles and Responsibilities 31
The History of U.S. Federalism LO 2-1

To describe the history
and evolution of
The men who met in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787 to draw up
American federalism
the U.S. Constitution were not wild-eyed optimists, nor were they revolution- from the writings of the
aries. In fact, as we’ll see in this section, they were consummate pragmatists Framers and the growth
whose beliefs shaped the new republic and created both the strengths and the of national power to the
contemporary time.
weaknesses of our federal system.
Early History
The Framers of the Constitution held to the belief of English political philoso-
pher Thomas Hobbes that human beings are contentious and selfish. Some of
them openly disdained the masses. For example, Gouverneur Morris of New York
declared of the American majority, “The mob begin to think and reason. Poor
reptiles! . . . They bask in the sun, and ere noon they will bite, depend upon it.”5
Most of the Framers agreed that their goal in Philadelphia was to find a means of
controlling lower forms of human behavior while still allowing citizens to have
a voice in making the laws they were compelled to obey. The “philosopher of the
Constitution,” James Madison, formulated the problem in terms of factions—
groups that pursue their own interests without concern for the interests of society
as a whole. Political differences and self-interest, Madison felt, led to the forma-
tion of such factions, and the Framers’ duty was to identify “constitutional devices
that would force various interests to check and control one another.”6
Three practical devices to control factions were placed in the U.S.
Constitution. The first was a system of representative government in which
citizens would elect individuals who would filter and refine the views of the
masses. The second was the division of government into three branches
(executive, legislative, and judicial). The legislative body was divided into two
houses, each with a check on the activities of the other. Equal in power would
be both a strong chief executive with the authority to veto legislative acts, and
an independent judiciary. Third, the government was structured as a federal
system, in which the most dangerous faction of all—a national majority—
would be constrained by the sovereign states. Alternatively, insurrection in one
state would be put down by the others, acting through the national government.
Madison’s ultimate hope was that the new Constitution would “check interest
with interest, class with class, faction with faction, and one branch of
government with another in a harmonious system of mutual frustration.”7
Even though today there appears to be more frustration, factionalism,
and fragmentation than harmony, Madison’s dream did come true. The U.S.
federal system is the longest-lived national constitutional government on
earth. Its dimensions and activities are vastly different from what the Framers
envisioned, but it remains a dynamic, adaptable, responsive, and usually
effective system for conducting the affairs of government.
The Move Toward Federalism

The drive for independence from the British Crown by the thirteen American
colonies was in large measure a reaction to “a history of repeated injuries and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving
medicine to the dead.
The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for
government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and
govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to
the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the
proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that
civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that
whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the
effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are
that first condense men into society, and what the motives that
regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the
time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of
the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon
each other.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best

state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most

ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.
JOHN STUART MILL
Mankind can hardly be too often reminded, that there was once a
man named Socrates, between whom and the legal authorities and
public opinion of his time, there took place a memorable collision.
Born in an age and country abounding in individual greatness, this
man has been handed down to us by those who best knew both him
and the age, as the most virtuous man in it; while we know him as
the head and prototype of all subsequent teachers of virtue, the
source equally of the lofty inspiration of Plato and the judicious
utilitarianism of Aristotle, the two headsprings of ethical as of all
other philosophy. Their acknowledged master of all the eminent
thinkers who have since lived—whose fame, still growing after more
than two thousand years, all but outweighs the whole remainder of
the names which make his native city illustrious—was put to death by
his countrymen, after a judicial conviction, for impiety and
immorality. Impiety, in denying the Gods recognized by the State;
indeed his accusers asserted (see the “Apologia”) that he believed in
no gods at all. Immorality, in being, by his doctrines and
instructions, a “corrupter of youth.” Of these charges the tribunal,
there is every ground for believing, honestly found him guilty, and
condemned the man who probably of all then born had deserved best
of mankind, to be put to death as a criminal.
HERBERT SPENCER
When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to

himself the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into
harmony with absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful
for the age, is a very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be
made equitable. The freest form of government is only the least
objectionable form. The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny:
the rule of the few by the many is tyranny also, only of a less intense
kind. “You shall do as we will, and not as you will,” is in either case
the declaration; and, if the hundred make it to ninety-nine instead of
the ninety-nine to the hundred, it is only a fraction less immoral. Of
two such parties, whichever fulfills this declaration, necessarily
breaks the law of equal freedom: the only difference being that by the
one it is broken in the persons of ninety-nine, whilst by the other it is
broken in the persons of a hundred. And the merit of the democratic
form of government consists solely in this,—that it trespasses against
the smallest number.
The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an
immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral
law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without
establishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public
arrangements by vote implies a society consisting of men otherwise
constituted—implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied
without sacrificing the desires of others—implies that in the pursuit
of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of
unhappiness on the minority—implies, therefore, organic
immorality. Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that
even in its most equitable form it is impossible for government to
disassociate itself from evil; and further, that, unless the right to
ignore the State is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.
LYOF N. TOLSTOY
The cause of the miserable condition of the workers is slavery. The

cause of slavery is legislation. Legislation rests on organized violence.
It follows that an improvement in the condition of the people is
possible only through the abolition of organized violence. “But
organized violence is government, and how can we live without
governments? Without governments there will be chaos, anarchy; all
the achievements of civilization will perish, and the people will revert
to their primitive barbarism.” But why should we suppose this? Why
think that non-official people could not arrange it, not for
themselves, but for others? We see, on the contrary, that in the most
diverse matters people in our times arrange their own lives
incomparably better than those who govern them arrange for them.
Without the least help from government, and often in spite of the
interference of government, people organize all sorts of social
undertakings—workmen’s unions, co-operative societies, railway
companies, and syndicates. If collections for public works are
needed, why should we suppose that free people could not without
violence voluntarily collect the necessary means, and carry out all
that is carried out by means of taxes, if only the undertakings in
question are really useful for anybody? Why suppose that there
cannot be tribunals without violence?
The robber generally plundered the rich, the governments

generally plunder the poor and protect those rich who assist in their
crimes. The robber doing his work risked his life, while the
governments risk nothing, but base their whole activity on lies and
deception. The robber did not compel anyone to join his band, the
governments generally enrol their soldiers by force. All who paid the
tax to the robber had equal security from danger. But in the state, the
more any one takes part in the organized fraud the more he receives
not merely of protection, but also of reward.
Ten Cents A Copy

Order from M. E. FITZGERALD, 857 Broadway, New York City
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and
variations in spelling.
2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings
as printed.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DEPORTATION,
ITS MEANING AND MENACE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

(Download pdf) State And Local Government 11Th Edition Ann Om Bowman full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download pdf) State And Local Government 11Th Edition Ann Om Bowman full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State and Local Government 11th

Edition Ann O'M Bowman

Guide to Local Government Finance in California

Close Ties in European Local Governance: Linking Local

In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget

American Government and Politics Today 11th Edition

The State of Texas: Government, Politics, and Policy

The State of Texas: Government, Politics, and Policy

The State of Texas: Government, Politics, and Policy,

Innovative Infrastructure Finance: A Guide for State

State and Local

Australia • Brazil • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States

Lumina Datamatics, Inc. www.cengage.com/permissions.

Senior Digital Delivery Lead:

Senior Marketing Manager:

Senior Designer: Sarah Cole

Printed in the United States of America

Preface vii The Evolution of State Constitutions 62

Government 60 Chapter Recap 143

Should Political Spending in Budgeting in State and Local

Chapter Recap 172 9 The Judiciary: Independence vs

Communities and Governance 300

The State’s Responsibility in Local

The Ongoing Challenge of Crime Turning Welfare Checks into

The Theme of State and Local Government

Features of the Text

The Controversies in States and Localities features are intended to gen-

The Content of the Eleventh Edition

the Tenth and Eleventh amendments. The fundamental legal underpinnings

Chapter 17. Welfare

Resources for Instructors

Ann O’M. Bowman (Ph.D., University of

Richard C. Kearney (Ph.D., University of

Carmine P. F. Scavo (Ph.D., University of

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum delivers

With appropriate oratorical flourishes, the

From Sewers to Science: The Functions of State

STATE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAW

national nonpartisan nonprofit organization—to Bloomberg Philanthropies6—a

How States and Localities Increased Their Capacity

Most important, state governments quietly and methodically reformed

Increased Capacity and Improved Performance

Improved Revenue SystemsEconomic downturns and limits on taxing

elderly people characterize efforts at tax equity. These revamped revenue

Expanding the Scope of State OperationsState governments have

Faster Diffusion of InnovationsAmong states, there have always been

have joined the climate change bandwagon.25 In 1985, San Francisco

Interjurisdictional CooperationAccompanying the accelerated flow of

Increased National-State ConflictAn inevitable by-product of more

Challenges Facing State and Local Governments LO 1-3

Table 1.2 Confidence in State Government to Handle Problems

Minnesota 69 West Virginia 51

Increased Interjurisdictional ConflictTension is inherent in a federal

Political CorruptionCorruption exists in government, which is no great

A pair of economists researching corruption in the states asked statehouse

LO 1-5 Ethnic-Racial Composition

more than 10038

period. President Trump reversed much of this in 2017, stating he want to

Population Growth and Migration

5.0% to 9.9% Less than 0.0%—

experienced population increases of more than 30 percent. Seattle was the

Protestors march to Indiana’s state capitol after passage of the

Linking Capacity to Results

A single broad and enduring issue in American