Federalism and Public Policy

“State”-side … State constitutions are more detailed and sometimes confer more rights than the federal one State constitutions are more detailed and sometimes confer more rights than the federal one – Initiative, referendum, recall “Nullification”: states declares null and void federal law they believe violates the Constitution “Nullification”: states declares null and void federal law they believe violates the Constitution – Civil War - states cannot nullify federal law – “Obamacare” referendums Dual federalism: both national and state governments are supreme in their own spheres Dual federalism: both national and state governments are supreme in their own spheres – “State Sovereignty” - State can do what is not prohibited by the Constitution or preempted by federal policy States as laboratories of democracy States as laboratories of democracy – Voting at 18; women’s suffrage; prohibition

Trickle-down Politics Commerce Power Commerce Power – Civil Rights Legislation – Federal Aid Pre-emption (restraints and mandates) Pre-emption (restraints and mandates) – Nutrition labeling – No Child Left Behind – Due process

Access to Government Bureaucracy Bureaucracy – Links local and national goals/interests – Implement policy – Provide jobs State Culture State Culture – “Red and Blue” States – Single member districts

Grants-in-aid Grants show how political realities modify legal authority. Grants dramatically increased in scope in twentieth century. Grants dramatically increased in scope in twentieth century. Prevailing constitutional interpretation until late 1930s: Prevailing constitutional interpretation until late 1930s: – federal government can’t spend money for purposes not authorized by Constitution – grants a way around this. Grants were attractive to state officials for various reasons: Federal budget surpluses & tax increased revenues Federal budget surpluses & tax increased revenues Federal control of money supply Federal control of money supply Appeared as “free” money for state officials, who did not have to be responsible for federal taxation. Appeared as “free” money for state officials, who did not have to be responsible for federal taxation.

Cooperative federalism A model of federalism in which the states and national government cooperate in solving complex common problems, emphasizes an expanded role for the national government. The New Deal and Cooperative Federalism. The New Deal and Cooperative Federalism. – Response to the Great Depression, implemented social-welfare programs designed to alleviate the bad economic times. – Dual federalism, in contrast, had held that programs such as relief for the poor were entirely outside of the federal role. Supreme Court struck down dozens of New Deal programs as unconstitutional Supreme Court struck down dozens of New Deal programs as unconstitutional After “Court Packing Plan” Court ceased to interfere with attempts to legislate broadly under the commerce clause. After “Court Packing Plan” Court ceased to interfere with attempts to legislate broadly under the commerce clause. – Why “Cooperative Federalism”? -- programs typically funded by the federal government, but administered by states and local governments, thus creating a cooperative framework for federalist relations.

Cooperative federalism Methods of Implementing Cooperative Federalism. Methods of Implementing Cooperative Federalism. – Categorical Grants: grants to states or local governments that are for specific programs or projects. – Block Grants: federal programs that provide funds to state and local governments for broad functional areas – Federal Mandates: requirement in federal legislation that forces states and municipalities to comply with certain rules

Meeting national needs 1960s shift in grants-in-aid From what states demanded... To what federal officials considered important as national needs From what states demanded... To what federal officials considered important as national needs – Federal grants to state and local governments increased. – Purpose of federal funds changed. The intergovernmental lobby Hundreds of state and local officials lobby in Washington Hundreds of state and local officials lobby in Washington – U.S. Conference of Mayors – National Governors Association – National Association of Counties – National League of Cities Purpose: to get more federal money with fewer strings Purpose: to get more federal money with fewer strings

12 Where the Money Goes

The Changing Purpose of Federal Grants to State and Local Governments

Categorical vs. Block grants Categorical grants Specific purposes defined by federal law Specific purposes defined by federal law Often require local matching funds. Often require local matching funds. Block grants (AKA special revenue sharing or broad-based aid) General purposes with few restrictions General purposes with few restrictions States preferred block to categorical grants; more autonomy. States preferred block to categorical grants; more autonomy. Neither achieved goal of giving states more spending freedom – Did not grow as fast as categorical grants – Number of strings actually increased General Revenue Sharing: provided money to states with no strings attached; ended in 1986

Categorical vs. Block grants Block grants grew more slowly than categorical grants due to differences between political coalitions that supported each. Federal officials, liberal interest groups, organized labor tend to distrust state government Federal officials, liberal interest groups, organized labor tend to distrust state government Categorical grants give the national government more power. Categorical grants give the national government more power. Categorical grants are matters of life or death for various state agencies. Categorical grants are matters of life or death for various state agencies. Supervising committees in Congress favored growth of categorical grants Supervising committees in Congress favored growth of categorical grants.

16 The Shift Toward Central Government Spending

Federal controls on state gov’t activities Conditions of aid: tell state governments what they must do if they wish to receive grant money traditional control -- Attached to grants; range from specific to general traditional control -- Attached to grants; range from specific to general Divergent views of states and federal government on costs and benefits of these conditions Divergent views of states and federal government on costs and benefits of these conditions – each side attempts to pass on most of the cost to the other sides Mandates: tell state governments what they must do – federal rules that states or localities must obey; generally have little or nothing to do with federal aid – EX: Civil rights & Environmental protection May or may not be funded May or may not be funded – Mandates more likely in policy areas that receive less federal funding – Waivers exempt some parties from federal mandates. may also make it difficult for state/local governments to: may also make it difficult for state/local governments to: – raise revenues & borrow funds – privatize public functions – may expose them to financial liability. Controversial mandates may result from court decisions Controversial mandates may result from court decisions – state prisons, school desegregation, legalized abortion

The “New Federalism” Beginning with President Nixon, the Republican Party championed devolution Beginning with President Nixon, the Republican Party championed devolution – the transfer of powers from the national government to state or local government – Most Americans favor devolution, but not if that means cuts in government programs that benefit most citizens Federalism 1990s-2000s: brief break from traditional positions. Federalism 1990s-2000s: brief break from traditional positions. – Bill Clinton transferred significant control over welfare programs to the states – George W. Bush increased federal control over education Tea Party Conservatism and Election 2012 Tea Party Conservatism and Election 2012 – OBAMA: stimulus, educ. Funding, Obamacare (ACA) – ROMNEY: Block Grant Medicaid, devolution – STATES: Personhood, Pot laws, Anti-ACA referendums