Tag Archives: federalism

Ah..Those Laboratories of Democracy…

When I introduce students to America’s constitutional architecture, I sometimes begin by asking them to define federalism. Judging from the blank stares and efforts to avoid being called on, I think it’s fair to say that our federalist system is not widely understood.

That’s too bad, because one of the policy debates we should be having–but aren’t–is how such a system should operate in a time when transportation and communication technologies have changed the way we view state lines. What sorts of rules and policies need to be national in scope, and which are best left to state and local government?

However we answer that question, one important role that states will undoubtedly continue to play is in the development of new approaches to governing.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously referred to the states as “laboratories of democracy;” the idea was that state governments would try new ideas and programs, acting as “pilot projects,” that would allow the rest of the country to evaluate the merits of those approaches before adopting them.

Inevitably, some will be cautionary tales, and pre-eminent in that category is Kansas or, as Charles Pierce calls it,

the failed state of Kansas, now in the fifth year of the Brownbackian Dark Ages, as such things are reckoned. Somehow, the fact that Kansas’ status as a supply-side lab rat has dropped the state down a political garbage chute the likes of which hasn’t been seen since they shredded the Articles of Confederation is beginning to seep under the guardhouses of the gated communities. The head of a healthcare company is fleeing to the Missouri border and he’s not shy about telling the world why.

The blistering indictment of Brownback’s Kansas by that company’s CEO is illuminating; noting that Kansas has become a test center of “trickle down” economics, he pointed out that those policies have led to a “dramatic failure of government.”

Brownback implemented unprecedented tax cuts in 2012. The largest cuts were in the highest tax brackets, and Brownback promised that they would provide a “shot of adrenaline” for the Kansas economy. They actually had the opposite effect, with Kansas lagging neighboring states in job growth and missing revenue targets in 11 of the past 12 months. In the face of ever-deeper debt and another round of degraded bond ratings, Brownback has asked his citizens to pray and fast to solve the budget crisis.

That should turn things around. Not.

It is tempting to look at the hot mess that is Kansas and feel better about Indiana. And granted, our fiscal problems–while substantial– are less severe. But our Governor has  generated his own cautionary tales.

Take, for just one example, his attack on public education and his fervent support of school vouchers. Indiana now has the largest voucher program in the country–and some of the most consistently under-resourced public schools. The public justification for expanding the voucher program is that allowing parents to choose private schools will improve education, at least as measured by test scores. (Given the percentage of families using those vouchers at religious schools, however, it is likely that the Governor’s preference for church over state– his consistent effort to bolster religious institutions and practices– is implicated.)

So how has Indiana’s “laboratory experiment” been working out? Not so well.

Recent research on statewide voucher programs in Louisiana and Indiana has found that public school students that received vouchers to attend private schools subsequently scored lower on reading and math tests compared to similar students that remained in public schools. The magnitudes of the negative impacts were large. These studies used rigorous research designs that allow for strong causal conclusions. And they showed that the results were not explained by the particular tests that were used or the possibility that students receiving vouchers transferred out of above-average public schools.

Perhaps Governor Pence can call for a day of prayer and fasting to raise the test scores of those voucher students. In the meantime, other states can be grateful for a federalist system that lets them learn from–and avoid– others’ disasters.

Comments

States’ Rights. And Wrongs.

David Schultz is an academic colleague of mine, a Professor at Hamline University, who recently used his blog to raise an issue that is all too often ignored: the current operation of federalism.

“Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it” is an old adage that might apply to Republicans when they make calls for federalism and states’ rights.    When Republicans began advocating for more state power they probably never expected to get what they are seeing now–states pressuring one another on policy and human rights issues, and states doing things that the national government cannot do.  And when Democrats and Liberals cheer for state travel bans to punish states for bathroom bills, they too may be opening themselves up to the dangers of federalism.

As David points out, we usually see staunch defenses of “state’s rights” as Republican-speak for “we have the right to ignore parts of the constitution we don’t like.” State’s rights understood in that way have a sordid history. Theoretically, such local control would strengthen grass-roots democracy; in reality, the agenda of many of the champions of the “New Federalism” was to use states rights to weaken the national government and undo what they labeled “the liberal agenda.”

Did empowering the states allow North Carolina and Mississippi to enact anti-LGBT legislation? Did it lead to Indiana’s embarrassing anti-choice bill? Sure. But there are very few single-edged swords.

But conversely, federalism also meant that states were freed up to act and do things they could not do before.  The concept of New Judicial Federalism, launched by a famous 1986 law review article by Supreme Court Justice Brennan, meant that state courts could draw on their constitutions to innovate.  And they have.  It was state courts that launched the gay rights movement, eventually pressuring the US Supreme Court to constitutionalize a right to same-sex marriage last year.  But states have also moved on marijuana legalization, health care reform, banning the death penalty, right to die legislation, minimum wage, and a host of other reforms that the federal government could not pass and which conservatives did not like.  Change is more often than not bottom up and not top down, and the federal courts have taken their cues from state courts to make doctrinal changes under federal law….

But now consider the reaction to the bathroom bills.  States, including Minnesota, have now imposed bans on non-essential travel to these states and are leading the way to encourage corporations and organizations to boycott these states.  Unleashing federalism means that states have the power to pressure one another to toe the policy line.  Doubtful this is what states’ rights advocates envisioned.

Our current understanding of federalism invites its invocation for less than noble reasons, and ultimately, that’s not good news for anyone, conservative or liberal. As David points out,

What if other states decide they do not like legislation in Colorado or Washington legalizing marijuana?  Or what if some states want to pressure another on tax, education, or other policies?  So far the new federalism boycotts have been launched to support liberal causes, but why not for conservative ones too?  Minnesota’s economic travel ban makes many Democrats feel politically smug but that tool can be used against them too.

This type of federalism runs very close to economic protectionism and parochialism that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause was meant to prevent.  The Constitutional framers of 1787 had seen the states discriminating against one another and part of the entire constitutional project was to bring economic and political unity to the country.  Federalism and states rights can as easily be symbolized by a burning cross as it can be by a burning joint. One’s rights should not depend on which state one lives in.

America is already far too fragmented. To the extent that federalism a/k/a “states rights” empowers both those who want to opt out of today’s America and those who want to marginalize the “opt-outers,” it may be time to rethink what “e pluribus unum” ought to look like.
Comments

Federalism & Hypocrisy

I see that Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has filed a “friend of the court” brief, urging the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court decision invalidating the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The court held that marriage is a state issue over which the federal legislature lacks authority.

I would have expected Attorney General Zoeller to applaud that ruling—after all, he has argued strenuously against federal authority in a number of other situations. He has even insisted that the federal government lacks authority to interfere with state decisions about Medicare—a federal program. Apparently, it’s okay for the feds to dictate state policies when he agrees with those dictates.

Can we spell hypocrisy?

It isn’t as if there is imminent danger of same-sex marriages being recognized in Indiana. Our appellate court has ruled that there is no state constitutional right to such marriages, and Indiana law has its own “defense of marriage” provision which was unaffected by the ruling.

Of course, the absolute absence of gay marriage in Indiana hasn’t kept the current legislature from reviving a proposed state constitutional amendment explicitly banning same-sex marriage along with anything “substantially similar” (whatever that means). This looks a lot like Oklahoma’s effort to prevent its courts from applying Sharia law—something exactly none of them were doing. Oklahoma lawmakers wanted to signal their hostility to Muslims, and these Indiana lawmakers want to signal their hostility to gays.

The truth of the matter is that the only way Indiana will ever get same-sex marriage is if the United States Supreme Court rules that the U.S. Constitution requires it—and if that happens, a state constitutional provision won’t be enforceable anyway. So reasonable people might wonder why our lawmakers are spending their time on nonexistent issues when we have so many real problems to address.

Continued tilting at this imaginary windmill wouldn’t much matter if it weren’t for the collateral damage the amendment would cause.

Indiana has been trying to recruit and grow high-tech employers—companies that are among the most gay-friendly, and that have significant numbers of gay employees. Passing an anti-gay constitutional amendment won’t exactly promote these economic development efforts.  There’s also a concern that writing discrimination into the constitution—the first time a constitutional provision would be used to deny civil rights rather than expand them—sets a dangerous precedent.  And far from “protecting” families, this measure’s vague language would make life more difficult for gay Hoosier families without in any way assisting heterosexual ones.

Efforts to improve the economy, grow jobs, streamline government and improve public education would actually help Hoosier families. But I suppose it is easier to pander to anti-gay sentiment than it is to improve life for all Indiana citizens.

On an unrelated note: This is my last column for the Indianapolis Star. I have deeply appreciated the comments and emails from readers over the years—pro and con—and invite those who wish to continue the conversation to do so at www.sheilakennedy.net.

Comments