POLS 207 Chapter 9

Begin Exam 3 Content

« previous | Sunday, October 14, 2012 | next »

Laws

Laws do not have to necessarily solve a problem; they could even be symbolic or to help obtain reelection

Districts

Districts are defined geographically;

costs and liabilities of geographic representation were minimal at one time, but are now very costly

Districts defined by states must be

compact
contiguous

Most modern districts lack compactness and any sense of identity.

Heterogeneous: diverse population opinions and roles; make representation difficult, esp. for minorities, but encourage compromise to win voter support before election.; vague campaign slogans
homogeneous: similarity among people with few conflicting points; make representation easier, but force compromise to take place after election.

Non-Geographic Districts

Though geographically-based districts were once necessary, they are not the only option. Such districts are hard to represent. Most districts have few interests shared by the large majority of their populations.

segmented representation: agricultural farmers choose their percentage of representatives, business owners choose their percent of representatives
entrepreneurial representatives: most popular people become representatives (e.g. social network model)
randomly selected: sample should represent population

Each achieves representatives that better reflect the characteristics of the governed. Each better copes with the complexity of modern life and employs modern communication tools.

Apportioning and Districting Population

(I have no respect for these cases since they were decided by the "freedom from religion" hooligans.)

Baker v. Carr (1962): federal courts can consider state legislative apportionment; ordered reapportionment of Tennessee lower house based on population
Gray v. Sanders (1964): "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the 15th, 17th, and 19th amendments can only mean one thing—one person, one vote.
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964): population equity applied to house of representatives
Reynolds v. Sims (1964): "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres."; 10% range between largest and smallest district population
Karcher v. Daggett (1983): struck down a redistricting plan that had a population range of less than 1%; Deviations from perfect equality had to be justified by "some legitimate state objective

Perfect population representative equality is difficult to obtain (even the 10% rule) because people move around.

Gerrymandering

LULAC v. Perry (2006): gerrymandering ruled unacceptable in 1996, but acceptable in 2006 ???; as long as redistricting occurs in acceptable times, partisan redistricting is not against federal law; (note: illegal reasons include race, ethnic, or language)

Gerrymandering tactics/strategies:

fracturing: breaking minority party and dissolving into districts
packing: creating minority party districts, but refusing to give them a majority vote in house.

3 District rules:

contiguity
population equality
Voting Rights Act compliance

Making Laws

Thousands of bills submitted, only hundreds of good bills.

Legislators rule out 90% of "bad bills"

Some bills are sent just as symbolic or "I tried" bills.
Some identical bills are considered and combined to form a single bill

Process

Drafting
Introduction: placing on desk
First reading: intro or assignment to standing committee
Committee reviews and revises bill
Placed on "calendar" for floor consideration (second reading)
Amendments proposed by the house
Third reading: final pass or defeat
Conference committee: made of reps from bicameral (house and senate) legislature
Governor's Signature / Veto
Overriding Governor Veto
Administration/implementation by agency
Judicial review (for [un]constitutionality questions)
Constitutional amendments (override courts)

Assessing Servicres and Pork

Services: Legislators provide services so they can get reelected.
Pork: Legislators take credit for tax dollars spent in their districts.

No one collects this data, so we can't assess it.

Professional v. Amateur Legislatures

Everyone but Nebraska uses the same law-making process

professional: meet many days each year; more money involved (it's all about money, isn't it?)
amateur: meet fewer days; many believe that amateur legislature does a poorer job

Average legislator compensation: $42,000:

maximum: CA > $177,000/yr; PA > $131,000/yr
minimum: NH: < $100/yr; UT < $4,800/yr; NM < $6,500

Note that the median income for a family of 4 is about $67,000.

Professionalism:

smaller legislatures: prestige of office, know who is responsible, encourage free debate
full-year sessions: avoid repeated special sessions
better compensation for "full-time legislators"
staff and office facilities

Congress is popularly characterized as

excessively partisan
indecisive
ineffective

If professionalism advocates are correct, then
states with professional legislatures should have better public policies:

superior research capability
quality law drafting
thorough debate
expertise of full-time legislatures
better decisions

If professionalism advocates are incorrect, then amateur advocates are correct:

legislatures are more like constituents—more representative.
better policies preferred by constituents

Conclusion:

insufficient empirical evidence to support the argument that states with more professional legislatures have more successful policies.
Alternative explanation: professional legislatures seem to be outgrowth of state's increasing complexity
Making legislatures more proffesional will not improve their performance
Trending towards professionalism
"professional" legislators are not "just average citizens"

Representation

"informal requirements"

citizen
resident
above a certain age (21 for lower house, 25 for upper house/senate)

Lawyers and businessmen are overrepresented
Minorities (women, African-Americans, Hispanics) are underrepresented

More accurate legislative representation may very well be linked to greater success.

Summary

Legislative branch is suposed to check/balance executive branch in making public policy and represent constituents. Representation is difficult to achieve.
Geographic selection of legislators was once necessary due to lack of literacy and communication technology. However Geog. selection is no longer necessary and no longer allows representatives to have a consistent constituency (easy to represent)
State legislatures apportion population into upper house (senate), lower house, and US congressional districts. District lines can greatly disadvantage minority party (gerrymandering), and are likely to dominate drawing future districts.
Enacting a bill involves "3-reading" procedure adopted from England. Very few bills are actually passed. Some legislators say that killing bad bills is more important than passing legislation.
metropolitan states have professional legislatures (higher pay, longer sessions, more staff, greater office areas, full-time legislators)
insufficient empirical evidence to support argument that states with professional legislatures have more successful policies.
representativeness of legislatures varies greatly (w.r.t. women and minorities). no state(s) stand out as most representative.
Better representation of minorities is empirically linked with more successful state policies. This relationship may or may not be causal