State Politics

In the U.S. federal system today, the states sometimes appear overshadowed by the national government. Still, the American states and their legal subdivisions are quite important. They spend enormous amounts of money--about $790 billion in 1990. Also, most of the contacts that ordinary Americans have with government are at the state and local level.

National Governments in Miniature

In many respects, state governments are miniature versions of the national or federal government. They have similar written constitutions and similar institutions of elected and appointed officials. State officials function in a similar fashion to national officials, and the political-level influences and structural factors that affect the national government apply to understanding state governments as well.

All fifty states have written constitutions that establish three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. They also enumerate certain limited powers for government and set forth the rights of citizens. The state constitutions are not as crisp and concise as the U.S. Constitution, however. Many of them go into specific, long- winded detail about particular matters of public policy.

One reason for the wordiness of state constitutions is that organized interests of various sorts have worked hard to enshrine their aims in state constitutions, so they cannot easily be changed by legislatures or courts and are insulated from the popular will.

All state governments provide for a governor, whose position resembles that of the president of the United States. Governors are popularly elected, usually for a four-year term. Most states limit governors to one, two, or three terms, but 18 states have no limit. In an effort to insulate gubernatorial elections from national political tides, elections for governor are usually held in federal off-years or in odd-numbered years, when no federal elections are being held at all.

The legal powers of governors vary from state to state. Some governors are strong while others are relatively weak. Nearly all have president-like powers to appoint top executive officials, propose legislation, and sign or veto bills passed by the legislature. Governors in 42 states enjoy a power of line-item veto, which means that they can reject parts of bills or particular appropriations while accepting others. This power gives governors an advantage over the legislature.

Early in American history, state governors rivaled the president of the United States in power and prestige. As the federal government grew, however, the relative standing of state governors declined. More recently, tight financial pressure on the states, especially after federal funds dried up during the 1980s, made it much harder to succeed as governor and led to many single-term governorships.

Every U.S. state but one has a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature, with a large assembly or house of representatives and a smaller state senate. This bicameral system slows the legislative process, especially when different parties control the two chambers. 

State legislatures are organized in much the same way as the U.S. Congress. The majority party picks a presiding officer who has varying degrees of influence over such matters as committee assignments, the legislative agenda, and the order of business. Also, a great deal of work is done in specialized committees which become an important entry point for interest group influence on state politics.

The Democratic party has dominated most state governments since the New Deal of the 1930s. Even in the years from 1969 through 1991, when Republicans won four out of five presidential elections, the large majority of state governors was Democratic. Even more so than governors, state legislatures tend to be controlled by the Democrats.

State governments have become more professional as the size and importance of state government has grown. Legislative sessions are longer and most legislatures meet every year instead of every other year. Being a legislator has become a full-time job in many states, requiring full-time salaries to attract talented people. Moreover, large staffs of experts are needed to deal with specialized legislation.

One difference between state governments and the national government is that citizens in some states have the power of initiative and referendum to propose and vote on legislative measures. When the Progressive movement first championed initiative and referendum at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was considered a democratic reform, that is, a way to let the people override corrupt or elitist legislatures. In practice, however, initiative and referendum has turned out to be a mixed blessing. It is so difficult for ordinary voters to sort out ballot propositions that the wealthy and the well organized often prevail through media campaigns.

Most of the courts that Americans encounter are part of state judicial systems. These systems are headed by a court of last resort, usually called the state supreme court. State supreme courts, similar to the U.S. Supreme Court, supervise their lower court systems and hear appeals from them. Most state supreme courts also have the power to declare state laws invalid under the state constitution. Nonetheless, the independence of state courts is limited. In only four states do supreme court justices serve for life or until the age of 70. Most of these judges come up for periodic reelection and/or are subject to recall.

Structure and Political Influences on State Policy

Key structural factors which have an impact on policy include a state's level of economic development, the nature of its economy, and its political institutions. Political science research finds that many of the sharpest political differences between states are related to their level of economic development. To put it simply, there are rich states and poor states. The rich ones have more tax money to spend, and they spend it on somewhat different things.

Per capita income or wealth is not the only structural factor. The precise nature of the economy also makes a difference. The agricultural states of the Great Plains, for example, have somewhat different policies from the old industrialized states of the Northeast. Certain political institutions and arrangements that endured over many years and that can be thought of as structural factors also affect policymaking. The most important are those involving political competition and popular participation in politics. A system of strong party competition, for example, seems to make more of a difference in state policies than which party actually holds power.

Political-level influences on state policies include public opinion and organized interest groups. Research indicates that public opinion has a substantial effect on state government policy. Gallup opinion surveys indicate that, when the people of a state favor or oppose capital punishment, child labor laws, or the inclusion of women on juries, the state tends to have policies in harmony with whatever its citizens wanted.

In another leading study, opinion surveys were used to rank states according to how liberal or conservative (on average) their populations were, and state policies of many different sorts were also ranked according to their liberalism or conservatism. The study found that states with liberal public opinion have more liberal policies than states with conservative public opinion.

It is impossible to be sure exactly how much influence interest groups have on state governments, but there is reason to believe that their impact is substantial. The states decide on policies that make a great deal of difference to groups and corporations. These groups are happy to invest money and effort in politics. State politicians need money for campaigning and, in some cases, to make a decent living. Also, state policy decisions are often made without close public scrutiny.

 It appears that interest groups have their greatest impact on policy when the policy under consideration is not highly visible and only affects a small number of people. Higher visibility of the issue may lead to a different kind of politics, in which the general public swings more weight than organized interests. However, on some issues, interest groups prevail even when the public cares a great deal.

Democracy in the States

State policy may be more susceptible to interest group influence and less subject to popular control than federal policy. When the size of a political constituency is small, it is easier for wealthy and well-organized interests to dominate. The multiplicity and obscurity of elective offices and agencies at the state level diminishes public interest and makes agencies accountable only to a narrow constituency of interests affected by their activities. Information and visibility are crucial. What the public does not know about, it cannot control. State governments often operate with relatively low visibility.

Nonetheless, we cannot be sure that there really is such a clear contrast between state and federal governments. Research shows no substantial policy differences between the two levels of government. The increasing importance of state government may have led to more public scrutiny and more public control, while the professionalization of state governments may have reduced their susceptibility to bribery or interest group pressure. In any case, the situation varies from state to state.

Urban Politics

The Rise of Cities and Suburbs

A major trend in American history has been the rise of big cities. Much of the growth of cities has resulted from immigration. Each wave of immigrants changed the face of America's cities and altered urban politics. The rise of cities and the immigration of ethnic groups in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries created a new kind of politics.  New immigrants were responsible, for example, for the development of the urban political machine, a party organization staffed by city workers who owed their patronage jobs to the party and kept in close touch with their friends and neighbors in the precincts and wards, doing people favors and getting votes in return.

The topic of political machines once aroused strong emotions. Many immigrants and working-class Americans appreciated the help that political organizations gave them, particularly during the years when the federal government offered no social welfare programs. But many middle- and upper-class Americans deplored the corruption and inefficiency associated with these machines. Some also disliked the political power that urban machines provided for foreign-born and working- class people.

Shortly after 1900, the Progressive movement, supported primarily by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant businessmen and professionals, crusaded to clean up city government and destroy political machines. To accomplish these goals, the Progressives promoted the adoption of a series of institutional changes. These included civil service laws that prevented the political hiring or firing of city workers; secret ballots and poll watchers for city elections; nonpartisan, at-large elections for city councils; and nonpartisan city manager executives to run the day-to-day affairs of city government.

Although most big cities resisted reform, many small- and middle-size cities, especially in the West, adopted the Progressives' proposals. These changes undoubtedly resulted in more honest and efficient government, but they also reduced popular control of city government, thereby impeding democracy. When political parties are weakened or eliminated, they are less able to alert people to government actions against their interests, and citizens have a more difficult time knowing how to vote. At-large elections reduce representation of community-based minorities. Moreover, nonpartisan elections generally feature lower rates of citizen participation, particularly by the poor.

City governments today reflect this history of immigration, growth, and reform. Many cities have city manager governments. Other cities elect city councils and strong mayors, who appoint other officials and have the power to veto council ordinances. Still other cities have councils with weak mayors who do little but preside over council meetings.

Institutional arrangements make a difference in city policies. For example, the fiscal crises of expanding demands and shrinking revenues that beset America's cities from the 1970s to the 1990s had a more devastating effect in New York City, where decisions were centralized and the mayor was beholden to city workers' unions, than in Chicago, where many government functions were insulated in independent boards with their own sources of revenue, and where the mayor could use his party machine to keep city workers under control.

As financial pressures have increased, many cities have privatized public services, contracting out to private entrepreneurs, who, it is hoped, will be more efficient and less expensive than public employees.

Since the end of World War II, widespread ownership of automobiles and the building of freeways enabled millions of Americans to settle in the suburbs while still working in the city. Attracted by large homes with spacious lawns and gardens, on quiet streets, with convenient shopping centers and good public schools and other facilities, many middle- class and upper-middle-class people moved to suburbia.

Echoing earlier waves of immigration to the United States, ethnic groups that made it economically moved to suburbs, leaving many black people and recent immigrants in the central cities.

By and large, the growth of urban areas has come at the expense of rural areas and small towns. As suburbs have grown, the proportion of Americans living in rural areas and small towns has shrunk from about 44 percent of the population in 1950 to just 23 percent in 1990. Small towns that are not shrinking often find that their governments are changing and professionalizing, just as many state legislatures and city governments are doing.

Population has also shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the Sun Belt of the South and Southwest, as the industries of the northeastern rust belt declined and those in the South grew. The 1990 census found, for example, that most of the biggest population increases during the 1980s occurred in Sun Belt suburbs.

The rise of suburbs in the Sun Belt and elsewhere has had two important effects on urban politics. First, more and more people live in places with political systems based on the Progressives' good government model, with city managers and professional staffs. These cities also face strains caused by rapid growth, including pressure on schools and other services, and problems of traffic congestion and air pollution. Second, many inner cities are now left with poor people, decaying infrastructures, and limited tax bases to pay for needed services.

The Plight of the Cities

The population of many older cities is predominantly minority and predominantly poor. These two facts are connected. Blacks and Hispanics tend to be poorer than other Americans. In 1988, 33 percent  of blacks and 28 percent of Hispanics were below the poverty line, while only 11 percent of whites had poverty incomes. Many other problems accompany poverty, including higher rates of drug use, crime, and homicide.

Inner city children face severe disadvantages. About 45 percent of all black children in the country and 39 percent of all Hispanic children are in families with incomes below the poverty level. Of all black children in the United States, 55 percent live with their mothers only, and more than 75 percent of those children are poor. These rates are even higher in the inner cities.  The large minority populations in America's cities have gradually won political power and government representation. Cities with majority black populations elected black mayors long ago. The largest cities with substantial black minorities, also elect black mayors from time to time. Moreover, a number of Hispanic mayors have won office in cities in the South and Southwest. Today, the makeup of city councils and city officials better reflects the importance of minority populations.

The problems of America's cities are vast and the resources to correct them are sparse. Urban poverty not only creates problems but it also means that city governments don't have much money with which to solve the problems because there is little income or wealth to tax.  Competition among political units limits what any local government can do to alleviate poverty. If a city imposes heavy taxes on businesses or wealthy people to pay for redistributive programs, those businesses and wealthy people may move to the suburbs or the Sun Belt while more poor people move in. Local governments, therefore, generally put more emphasis on policies for economic development than for fighting poverty.

This tendency of city governments to subsidize development while cutting back on social programs is exacerbated by the political power of developers and corporations, which lobby city government intensely and provide much of the money that urban politicians need to get elected.

Some analysts argue that the federal government should provide money to deal with urban problems, because only a national solution is possible for nationwide problems. City governments cannot cope on their own. If they scrape up their own money to help the poor, more poor people will move in and rich people will move out. Moreover, the cities provide major commercial, financial, and cultural services to surrounding communities and the entire country, for which they are not fully compensated.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, however, the Reagan and Bush administrations showed little interest in providing money to the cities. They cut rather than increased urban aid.

Democracy in the Cities

It is not easy to assess how democratic city governments are or compare them with state and national governments because of the lack of comparable data on relationships between public opinion and policy. We can only hazard an informed guess: many cities probably stand in a middle position, more visible and more responsive to their citizens than most state governments, but less so than the national government.