The Evolving Right to Travel: Saenz v. Roe

Although the 1996 federal welfare-reform law shifted more authorityfor welfare policy to the states-including authority to providelower benefits to new state-residents than to longer term residents-theU. S. Supreme Court's decision in Saenz v. Roe delineates alimit on that authority, namely, that states cannot discriminateagainst citizens based on their length of in-state residency.The Court's reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment's privilegesor immunities clause in Saenz, while surprising after its longdormancy, is not a departure from prior precedent. What remainsto be seen is whether states will attempt to avoid the decision'simplications by adopting new variations on residency laws, andwhether the revival of the privileges or immunities clause willlead to a rearticulalion of individual civil rights, based ona new understanding of national citizenship.     

The Limits of Judicial Desegregation Remedies after Missouri v. Jenkins

How far can federal courts go to remedy unconstitutional segregation?In Missouri v. Jenkins in 1990, the U. S. Supreme Court appearedto add new taxing powers to the existing tools already availableto the judiciary. By a 5–4 vote, the Court affirmed court-orderedtaxation to fund an elaborate and expensive desegregation planfor the Kansas City, Missouri, School District. This articleexamines that decision, how it developed, what it said, howit was received, and, most important, what its long-term significancemay be. We argue that the "new" judicial taxing authority sanctionedin the decision may not prove nearly as important as at firstanticipated In the long run, Missouri v. Jenkins may prove mostsignificant for the questions about desegregation remedies raisedby Justice Anthony Kennedy in a dissenting opinion. Those questionscould presage a more skeptical Court outlook on substantiveschool desegregation remedies, at least where those remediescall for additional public funding, as well as greater Courtdeference to the outcomes of state-local political processes.     

Revenue Diversification in Arkansas Cities: The Budgetary and Tax Effort Impacts

The consequences of revenue shortfalls for cities are particularly dramatic due to the balanced‐budget requirement. Revenue diversification is one method of stabilizing revenue streams because diversified revenue structures can mitigate the revenue fluctuations often associated with single source revenue. Using audited financial reports, this study examines the impact of revenue diversification in Arkansas cities over 10 years. To address the issue of revenue adequacy, this study examines diversification's impact on current year budget changes in revenue and expenditures as well as its impact on tax effort.     

The evolving corporate board

This study draws heavily on the author’s report “Strengthening the Corporate Board” and on his textbook Business and Government in the Global Marketplace.Samuel Hughes provided helpful research assistance.     

FCC v. The States: Who Shall Regulate Intrastate Telecommunications?

The 1934 Communications Act established a dual system of federaland State telecommunications regulation. The act gave the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate interstateand foreign telecommunications but not intrastate communications,a market reserved for the states. As part of its move to deregulatethe telecommunications market in the 1970s, the FCC sought toextend its jurisdiction by preempting state regulatory authorityover telecommunications activities traditionally consideredintrastate. In 1986, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, in itsdecision in Louisiana Public Service, restricted federal preemptionof state laws and reinforced the dual regulatory system. Withthe break-up of AT&T, the FCC has renewed its preemptionactivities, claiming that the preemption is necessary in orderto foster an efficient nationwide telecommunications system.Several cases now pending in federal courts will test the breadthand depth of the Supreme Court's holding in Louisiana PublicService, and thereby, the future of the dual regulatory system.     

Devolutionary Federalism and Elazar's Typology: The Arkansas Response to Reagan's New Federalism

This article examines the relationship between the federal andstate governments with regard to the Reagan administration'sNew Federalism. The underlying concern centers on the financialrelationship among governments portrayed by Elazar's typologyof federal aid. The focus of this investigation is directedtoward the adjustments being made by the states to accommodatethe financial and administrative changes occurring on the nationallevel, as illustrated by the case of Arkansas. The analysiscenters on two questions: 1) Has the New Federalism initiativeachieved Reagan's goals of decentralizing governmental authorityback to the states? 2) Has a major redirection in the federalsystem been achieved by reducing the federal financial obligationin the intergovernmental system? The changes being made in thefederal system, as reflected by the adjustments occurring amongthe states, may signal an important realignment of federalism.     

The decision to lobby bureaucrats

Despite a good deal of interest in lobbyists?? tactics, virtually no research has been published examining the conditions under which interest groups lobby the bureaucracy rather than or in addition to the legislature. Using two comprehensive datasets, I show that lobbying increases in both branches when conflict is higher and when the lobbyist has professional or political connections to that venue. In addition, certain conditions cause lobbyists to specialize in one branch or a particular branch only, depending on the issue area being lobbied, the interest group type being represented, the lobbyist??s resources, and other factors.     

The clash of government structure and racial politics in the City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson

Drawing on a qualitative case study of the political actors who authorized Richmond, Virginia's minority contractor ordinance, this article analyzes the discontinuity between their efforts to redistribute political resources into the black community and the municipal government structure established by the progressive reform movement and reinforced by the Supreme Court ruling in the City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson. It argues that the specific points of contention are the progress reforms that eliminated political patronage and required parsimonious tax structures. Pervious research noted the benefits and/or constraints on the redistributive efforts of black politicians/ regimes arising from coalitions in governments structured by progressive reforms. This research, in contrast, argues that we must look to the political structure itself as a source of constraints also. Thus, as affirmative action policies like the one in the City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson are outlawed, racial minorities will find their efforts to achieve social, and especially economic, equality limited by the dictates of the political system itself.     

The Impact of United States v. Lopez on Intergovernmental Relations: A Preliminary Assessment

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. United States(1995) was the first occasion since the. 1930s where a congressionalact was overturned on the ground that its subject matter boreno perceptible relation to interstate commerce. The case maysignal significant change in the Court's federalism jurisprudence.Instead of looking mainly to the Tenth Amendment to find constitutionalsafeguards for the states, conservative justices may now identifycommerce-power limitations. The politics of the Lopez case suggestthat the Congress finds electoral advantages in federalizingcrime and is disinclined to sort out roles for different governmentsin law enforcement. Paradoxically, this pattern exists evenas the Congress is undergoing certain changes that may makeconsideration of basic constitutional issues more likely. Finally,this article demonstrates the weakness of public interest groupsin influencing federal policymaking in criminal law.     

The U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Jurisprudence: Alden v. Maine and the Enhancement of State Sovereignty

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudencehas shielded states from certain aspects of Congress's policymakingand enforcement authority. Through its interpretations of theinterstate commerce clause and of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments,the Court has reminded Congress that its power to govern haslimits. This article presents the major federalism cases ofthe 1990s, focusing on Alden v. Maine, the most important federalismdecision of the 1998–1999 term. It concludes that theCourt's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment and the sovereign-immunitydoctrine, which has constrained the federal government's powerto authorize private suits against states for violations offederal law, poses a threat to a fundamental principle of therule of law: "where there is a right, there is a remedy."     

From Shaw v. Reno to Miller v. Johnson: Minority Representation and State Compliance with the Voting Rights Act

In 1994, four federal district courts applied the tests setforth in Shaw v. Reno in order to rule on the constitutionalityof congressional districting schemes that were comprised, inpart, of "majority-minority" districts. The difference of opinionthat arose among the lower courts indicated that Shaw had setforth unclear standards for determining (I) what role the federalcourts should play in monitoring state redistricting practices,and (2) whether a remedial redistricting plan is a racial gerrymander.Also, the disagreements exposed the weakness of some of theassumptions on which voting rights analysis is grounded. InMiller v. Johnson, the Supreme Court sought to address the lowercourts' concerns. Nonetheless, voting rights jurisprudence remainsunclear regarding (I) what constitutes a valid claim of vote-dilution,and (2) whether voting should be perceived as a group or individualright.     

The Two Browns: Policy Implementation and the Retrenchment of Brown v. Board of Education

The colorblind individualism that pervades American politics and society keeps schools segregated although Americans support integrated public education. While the 1954 US Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education has never been overruled, later cases and policies have encouraged its retrenchment. We argue in this multi-disciplinary review of published literature that there are two different versions of Brown—the iconic, pro-integration symbol supported by most Americans, and a formal, juridical requirement that permits continued school segregation. The formal, juridical Brown is supported by the implementation of multiple educational policies, particularly neighborhood schools, magnet schools, and charter schools, all built on the firm belief that there is no violation of Brown. Rather than promoting a vision of Brown that champions a strong integration goal, these policies bolster the second interpretation of Brown: one that allows segregation to occur, so long as it is not outwardly deliberate.