Tag Archives: federalism

Federalism

In the United States, states have a long history of being considerably less than united. The Articles of Confederation were so focused on protecting the prerogatives of the individual colonies that they proved unworkable, and were replaced by a Constitution that made its own significant concessions to “states’ rights.”

As the country modernized and experienced increasing economic and social integration, the need for national standards became more obvious. Lawmakers recognized that federal agencies regulating things like health or clean air and water needed to issue regulations that would operate similarly in all the states. The Uniform Law Commission (also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), was created to draft legislation that would bring stability and conformity to state statutory law in areas where such uniformity is seen as desirable and practical. And there is an obvious need for federal law enforcement to enforce its criminal laws nationally.

But there is still room for considerable variation. Justice Brandeis memorably called the states in our federalist system “laboratories of democracy.”

Americans increasingly operate, live and do business in multiple states–a situation that led me to discount the importance of federalism for a long time. (Different laws in different states, after all, caused some very silly situations; before the Supreme Court found same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right, people who were married in one state weren’t considered married in others.) I focused on the downside and failed to appreciate the upside.

The Trump administration has reminded me of federalism’s importance. Governors like Jay Pritzker in Illinois and Gavin Newsom in California, among others, have illustrated that importance, and a recent article from Vox called federalism a “hidden constraint” on Trump.

So far, the biggest successes against President Donald Trump’s second-term assault on democracy have come not from Congress and the Supreme Court, but more unusual sources: lower-court judges, “No Kings” protests, a Disney+ subscriber boycott, and Trump’s own indiscipline and incompetence.

After the 2025 elections, we can add the states to the list. And in some ways, this avenue of resistance may prove to be the most consequential one.

The article noted that the United States’ federalist system is unusual among backsliding democracies– and that it creates some “major opportunities for institutional pushback” that aren’t possible elsewhere. It also notes the irony of where we are today, since for most of our history, states (especially in the South) “have been places where pockets of authoritarianism could exist in a nationally democratic society.”

Certain of the powers that are, in our system, remitted to the states — very much including control over the administration of elections — are mechanisms through which we can resist this administration’s authoritarian power grab. We can see this most vividly in Trump’s effort to rig the upcoming midterm elections by asking Red states to engage in improper mid-cycle gerrymanders.

Because election administration is almost entirely devolved to the states in the American system, Trump has very limited powers to actually try and rig elections from DC. Instead, gerrymandering at the state level — threatening and cajoling governors and state legislatures into drawing as many safe seats for Republicans as possible — is his best shot at actually stacking the deck in the GOP’s favor in 2026.

As we are seeing, that effort is currently failing. Not only have Blue states “counter-gerrymandered,” but legislators in Red states like Indiana have (at least so far) refused to go along, deferring to the huge majorities of their constituents who disapprove.

As the article points out, would-be autocrats follow a well-worn path that requires consolidating formal power in their own hands and neutering independent checks on their authority. It’s a lot harder to rig elections or prosecute your political opponents when you don’t control the necessary levels of power. True, strong federalism cannot guarantee democracy: (Our history has ample examples of authoritarianism flourishing at local levels) But that system creates “opportunities for contestation” when the national government is moving in an unAmerican direction.

It’s hard to imagine a more unAmerican–not to mention demented– administration than the one we currently have. In just the last week, our mad would-be King has accepted a bribe from Saudi Arabia, authorized extra-judicial killings of Venezuelan fishermen, called for the death of political opponents who had the temerity to remind our troops that they took an oath to defy manifestly illegal orders, and responded to a legitimate question from a reporter by calling her “piggy.”

Given the fact that we have a Congress of eunuchs and a corrupt majority on the Supreme Court, I have a new appreciation for the role of federalism in America’s system of checks and balances.

Comments

it’s The Structure, Stupid!

A reader recently sent me a link to an article from Governing with a provocative title suggesting that the current crisis with democracy should be blamed on the states. The article pointed to a variety of problems that this blog and many others have frequently addressed, including the Electoral College, gerrymandering and vote suppression, and the structure of the Senate.

Despite the article’s title, the problems identified in the article can’t fairly be attributed to the states, although some of them (gerrymandering and vote suppression, certainly) are activities conducted by the states. The very real problems the article enumerates–and a couple it doesn’t–are more properly designated as structural. 

One of the problems with a population that is largely civically-ignorant is the widespread belief that we just need to elect the “right” people who support the “right” policies, and longstanding issues will be resolved. Very few Americans recognize the structural roots of our dysfunctions, and consequently, there are few, if any, efforts to address them.

The linked article identifies several of these structural impediments to a genuinely democratic system–defined as a system truly reflecting the will of the voting populace. I’m well aware that there are a number of scholars and pundits who are unenthusiastic, to say the least, about such a system; they remind us that the Founders were leery of “the people” and created impediments to what they characterized as mass prejudices and popular passions. (Indeed, the Bill of Rights is correctly identified as a counter-majoritarian document.) Most Americans today, however, give at least lip service to the notion that a democratic system, in which elected officials act in ways that reflect the expressed will of the majority, is the ideal.

We don’t currently have such a system, and as the linked article reminds us, the constitutional prerogatives of the states in our federalist system are largely to blame.

Consider all the ways states serve to frustrate the will of the people. First, the Electoral College, which votes state by state, has already installed five presidents whom the voters had rejected nationwide. The many additional near misses make frequent future recurrences a statistical certainty.

The U.S. Senate is even more counter-majoritarian. As of 2023, a majority of the U.S. population is clustered in states that together get only 18 of the 100 senators. The minority get the other 82.

We can blame the Founders for the Electoral College, but the clustering of the population is a more recent demographic reality–and even more damaging. That said, even among the Founders there were those who failed to understand why their “states’ rights” colleagues insisted on the equality of states, which were, after all, artificial creations, rather than the equality of the people who lived in them. As the article reminds us, Federalists like James Madison were bitterly opposed to what they saw as a grossly undemocratic Senate. “Ultimately, however, they accepted the proffered compromise (equally populated House districts, plus states as Senate districts), but only as an unavoidable concession to get the required nine state ratifications.”

One result of this empowerment of states rather than people has been a gradual shift of voting power to rural inhabitants at the expense of urban Americans. (One study found that a rural vote counts one and a third compared to a vote cast by a city dweller.)

As the article reminds us, states have used their prerogatives to suppress votes and–in states that allow initiatives–to overrule the results of popular votes. (In Indiana, which lacks a referendum or initiative, no rational observer would suggest that majority members of our legislature even try to reflect the will of the people.)

Making matters worse, in the U.S., changing structural defects is incredibly difficult.  That’s why the effort to eliminate the Electoral College is through an interstate compact rather than a Constitutional amendment. As the article reminds us, the U.S. Constitution has been described as the hardest in the world to amend.

It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or a constitutional convention process that has never been used).

Winning a two-thirds vote in the already counter-majoritarian Senate is hard enough, but ratification by the states can be harder still. Only recently, states that represented just 22 percent of the U.S. population were able to block the Equal Rights Amendment, against the wishes of states representing the other 78 percent.

If and when we emerge from our current descent into fascism and autocracy, we need to address the structural issues that have facilitated that descent–including a thorough revamping of the Supreme Court.

Comments

The Merits Of Federalism

I have always been ambivalent about American federalism. I know that many in the legal community, including Supreme Court Justices who came after him, agreed with Justice Brandeis that federalism encourages the states to be “laboratories of democracy,” but I also know that many states–including the one I inhabit–use “states’ rights” as their defense against compliance with national rules, especially– but certainly not exclusively–the extension of civil liberties to their own citizens.

The election of Donald Trump, however, has made me a federalism fan.

In a recent opinion piece, Jennifer Rubin focused on the possibilities for resistance that our federalist system provides to Blue state governors in the face of Trump’s assault on rational federal governance.

The positive news: Governors are constitutionally empowered and morally obligated to check the federal government and fill the gaps where the federal government has abandoned vulnerable people. They will be the last line of defense against an irresponsible and reckless Trump administration.

Fortunately, an extraordinary batch of Democratic governors including Tim Walz of Minnesota, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Maura Healey of Massachusetts appear ready to both protect their residents from a reckless administration and offer an alternative vision that benefits average Americans.

Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, told the New York Times, “States in our system have a lot of power — we’re entrusted with protecting people, and we’re going to do it.” He added, “They can expect that we’re going to show up every single time when they try to run over the American people.”

What can states do to counter what Rubin calls Trump’s “grab bag of crackpots?” His bizarre choice of RNK, Jr., who has declared war on medicine, is joined by his pick for secretary of defense, a man who doesn’t appear to believe in germs, and a nominee to head up Medicare who championed the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, (Her column appeared before the CEO of the Wide World of Wrestling was chosen to head up the Department of Education.)

In the face of growing evidence that Trump intends to decimate the federal government, what can governors do? According to Rubin, plenty. With respect to health issues,

they can stockpile vaccines and abortion medications, offer medical school students from red states a transfer to their schools, loosen rules for telemedicine, ease requirements to license doctors accredited elsewhere, reiterate vaccine requirements for schoolchildren (and fund free vaccine programs for vulnerable communities), expand their own health departments and pool resources to fund medical research. In short, they can develop an alternative model of responsible health-care governance.

Governors’ actions can go well beyond healthcare. If Trump’s government tries to enforce his promises to roll back overtime and worker safety rules, governors can enforce state laws protecting workers. They can defend the environment by bringing a steady stream of litigation to protect air, water and natural resources. (Rubin notes that Democracy Forward, a legal group formed after Trump’s 2016 win, has built a “multimillion-dollar war chest and marshaled more than 800 lawyers to press a full-throated legal response across a wide range of issues.”)

On other fronts, they can sue to enforce consumer protection rules or challenge coercive action depriving states of federal funds. (States filed roughly 160 suits against the first Trump administration.) Bob Ferguson, Washington’s Democratic attorney general and governor-elect, recently said that, according to Associated Press, “offices of Democratic attorneys general have been in touch for months to talk about how to push back against Trump’s policies.” They also can maintain strict gun safety regulations, bring suits against gun manufacturers and fund research on gun violence….

To promote democracy, they can offer enhanced civics education, public media literacy programs and public service requirements for high school and college graduates. And, as leading legal minds have been arguing for some time, they can creatively expand multistate compacts on everything from “social services delivery; child placement; education policy; emergency and disaster assistance; corrections, law enforcement, and supervision; professional licensing; water allocation; land use planning; environmental protection and natural resources management; and transportation and urban infrastructure management.” A new entity, Governors Safeguarding Democracy, may be just the vehicle to facilitate this activity.

Finally, Rubin notes that governors can counter the right-wing media ecosphere by highlighting the damage caused by anti-family, anti-child and anti-life MAGA policies.

Rather obviously, Red state governors won’t take such measures, so the resistance won’t be uniform. But it will be instructive. And it will offer Americans options– places to relocate to if and when their own state’s compliance with the wrecking crew becomes too onerous.

Comments

Federalism And MAGA Lies

I know it’s hopeless to expect anything approaching logic–or constitutional knowledge– from MAGA conspiracy theorists, but I’ll admit I still get surprised by the sheer fact-free idiocy of some of their anti-Biden accusations. In many cases, that idiocy is an outgrowth of what I call “civic illiteracy”–an obvious lack of knowledge of the most basic structures of American government.

Take the MAGA folks who are screaming over Trump’s New York prosecution and subsequent guilty verdicts. Republican partisans–some of whom, as elected officials, should certainly know better–accuse the Biden administration of “weaponizing” the Department of Justice, claiming that President Biden was responsible for both Alvin Bragg’s decision to charge Trump and for the subsequent jury verdict.

Yeah! As the Lincoln Project recently noted, it’s also Biden’s fault you got that speeding ticket!

Anyone who took a high school government class (and actually passed) should know the difference between federal and state jurisdiction. That difference is part of what we call federalism–and it’s foundational to our legal and governmental systems. As I used to explain to my students, the Founders gave us both horizontal and vertical checks and balances: separation of powers (dividing authority among the branches of government–someone should tell Tommy Tuberville), and federalism (dividing authority between federal, state and local units of government).

Federalism is evidently a concept utterly foreign to a large segment of the voting population. As the Washington Post recently reported, a CBS News-YouGov poll tried to figure out just “how many Americans buy into the baseless idea that Biden had something to do with the charges against Trump in Manhattan.

Turns out, it’s 43 percent — and 80 percent of Republicans. Those are the percentages who agree that the charges were brought because of “directions that came from the Biden administration,” rather than merely by “prosecutors in New York.”…

The article debunked several aspects of the claim, and noted

This theory was also firmly rejected in recent weeks by no less than former Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina, who worked on Trump’s defense early in the Manhattan prosecution. He called the idea “silly” and “ridiculous.”

“Joe Biden or anyone from his Justice Department has absolutely zero to do with the Manhattan district attorney office,” Tacopina said in an MSNBC interview, adding, “We know that’s not the case, and even Trump’s lawyers know that’s not the case.”

“People who say that,” Tacopina told MSNBC, “it’s scary that they really don’t know the law or what they’re talking about.”

By Tacopina’s formulation, 4 in 10 Americans have no idea what they’re talking about.

As the article notes, this is hardly the first time Trump’s base has come to believe nonsense, despite a lack of any evidence–and in spite of the fact that believing it requires total ignorance of the structure of their own government.

Believing that the federal government stage-managed a state-level trial also requires a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance, since the GOP has long insisted on an extreme version of “state’s rights.”

In fact, the Republican Party has never quite gotten over its original resentment over incorporation–the odd word for the doctrine that nationalized the Bill of Rights. That process was initiated after passage of the 14th Amendment constitutionalized the principle that the fundamental liberties protected by the Bill of Rights should be a “floor”–that a citizen in Alabama should enjoy the same basic rights as a citizen of New York. States are able to enlarge on those rights, but thanks to nationalization of the Bill of Rights, they are forbidden to retract them. (That’s why the theocrats found it necessary to eliminate reproductive freedom from the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.)

Our relatively strong federal government was founded in reaction to the serious and multiple problems the country experienced under the Articles of Confederation, which gave states far too much authority.  Obviously, not all policies need to be nationally uniform–there are plenty of areas where local control is appropriate. However, questions about who is entitled to fundamental rights–and what those rights are–shouldn’t be one of them, as the patchwork of approaches to reproductive freedom that’s emerging is likely to demonstrate. Forcefully. Justice Alito’s dismissal of the substantive due process doctrine is-–among other incredibly negative things– a step back toward the fragmentation of the Articles of Confederation.

But that step back didn’t merge state and federal justice systems.

Some of the Republicans who champion “states rights” are happy to ignore the whole concept in order to fabricate a ridiculous–albeit comforting– accusation. Others–probably the majority– are just broadcasting their profound ignorance of America’s basic governance structure.

Comments

Let’s Talk About Federalism

Ah, federalism! In the abstract, “laboratories of democracy” and a component of those “checks and balances” the Founders established.

Two hundred plus years later, a mess.

Very few students came into my classes with an understanding of the term or the multiple and often confusing ways in which federalism operates in the 21st Century. (That confusion was clearly shared by the author of a recent Washington Post essay who didn’t seem to understand when state-level prosecutors like Bragg can charge violations of both state and federal laws in a single prosecution. In all fairness, however–as I so often told my students– it depends, and it’s complicated.)

Actually, in addition to gerrymandering, the Electoral College, the filibuster, and the number/ terms of Supreme Court Justices, it’s also past time to revisit and revise the divisions of authority between state and federal governments.

Our relatively strong federal government was founded in reaction to the serious and multiple problems the country experienced under the Articles of Confederation, which gave states far too much authority.  In recent years, however, we seem to have forgotten about the very negative consequences of government fragmentation that prompted the Founders to establish a strong central government.

Obviously, not all policies need to be nationally uniform–there are plenty of areas where local control is appropriate. However, questions about who is entitled to fundamental rights–and what those rights are–isn’t one of them, as the patchwork of approaches to reproductive freedom that’s emerging is likely to demonstrate. Forcefully.

The (belated) application of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments was meant to establish a floor–to ensure that a citizen moving from say, New York to Indiana, would not thereby experience a reduction of her fundamental rights as an American citizen. Justice Alito’s evisceration of the substantive due process clause is–among other incredibly negative things– a step back toward the fragmentation of the Articles of Confederation.

The need for substantial national uniformity isn’t confined to civil liberties. Over the 200+ years of American statehood, the need to rationalize and unify large areas of the law gave rise to the work of the Uniform Law Commission; that body developed the Uniform Commercial Code– a comprehensive set of laws governing all commercial transactions in the United States. It has national application, but it isn’t a federal law–it had to be adopted by each state’s legislature.

As the Commission’s website explains,

Uniformity of law is essential in this area for the interstate transaction of business. Because the UCC has been universally adopted, businesses can enter into contracts with confidence that the terms will be enforced in the same way by the courts of every American jurisdiction. The resulting certainty of business relationships allows businesses to grow and the American economy to thrive.

Commerce is hardly the only area where uniformity is desirable and/or necessary. Federal action in the face of a pandemic would certainly seem to qualify, and before the incompetence and massive ignorance of the Trump administration, the federal government largely directed public health responses to threatened outbreaks.  A lot of people died as a result of Trump’s decision to leave COVID response to the states.

I won’t even address the insanity of leaving gun laws to the states in a country as mobile as the U.S.

Then there’s the environment. ( Air and water don’t stay in Indiana.)

The Indiana Capital Chronicle recently reported on efforts by Indiana lawmakers to give the General Assembly power over decisions that are currently left to state agencies  staffed with experts who implement state and federal environmental laws— a move that  would put Hoosiers’ health and environment in jeopardy.

A sweeping, 54-page amendment was added last week to the administrative rulemaking bill, which additionally seeks to put lawmakers in charge of new pesticide regulations and prevent state environmental regulators from making stricter coal ash rules than federal ones.

Indiana’s legislators already believe they know more than doctors; now they think they’re experts in environmental science. Given their consistent subservience to the state’s utilities, passage of this bill would be a huge step backwards.

No serious student of governance believes that, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, all decisions should be made at the federal level. The question with which we should be grappling is “which responsibilities are properly federal and which matters are properly left to state or local governments?” .

What laws need to be uniform if we are to be the United States of America, rather than a haphazard collection of Red and Blue fiefdoms?

I’m willing to leave zoning decisions up to local municipalities, and a substantial portion of criminal justice measures up to the states. When it comes to guns, the environment or fundamental rights, not so much…

Comments