The State of American Federalism, 2002-2003: Division Replaces Unity

The national unity formed last year in response to terrorismsoon vanished as more typical political infighting returned.Although overshadowed by the buildup to and the conduct of asecond war against Iraq, political issues grounded in the nation'sfederal character contributed to a rise in divisiveness. Themid-term elections of 2002 and redistricting battles in severalstates drove partisanship to new heights. The continued sluggishnessof the nation's economy also exacerbated interparty bickering.Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress,yet some of the president's policy initiatives encountered moreserious resistance in his own party than from the opposition.Many of the feuds within the majority party rested on stateand regional interests typical of federalism politics. Stateand local governments remained trapped in the third year ofa fiscal crisis, and even large reductions in expenditures didnot extricate these governments from the financial fix. Despitetheir pleas, state and local officials were unable to obtainany significant relief from the federal government. Federal-staterelations, as a consequence, exhibited more contentiousnessthan cooperation.     

The State of U.S. Federalism, 2000-2001: Continuity in Crisis

Despite the 2000 presidential-election crisis, basic continuityprevailed in American federalism, including survival of theelectoral college and furtherance of the more recent shift offederal policymaking from places to persons during today's eraof coercive or regulatory federalism. The year revealed theenduring salience of political parties and the prominent roleof interest groups in the politics of federalism, as well asthe ways in which the federal system shapes, and is shaped by,policy debates. The U.S. Supreme Court continued its state-friendlydecision-making while Congress continued to preempt state authority,attach new conditions to federal aid, federalize criminal law,and nationalize power even while giving state and local governmentsmore administrative discretion. The year also illustrated thedeclining impact of federal aid on state-local revenues comparedto the increasing fiscal impact of the federal government'ssubstantive, monetary, and fiscal policies.     

The State of American Federalism, 1992-1993

In terms of federalism, the year 1992-1993 was interesting inits ambivalence. The new president and a somewhat reconstitutedCongress took actions that reverberated through the intergovernmentalsystem; yet there was no hint of a coherent theory of federalismunderlying those actions. Two trends held steady: the federaldeficit continued to constrain new domestic initiatives andstates and localities continued to be subjected to un(der)fundedmandates. A review of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in cases withintergovernmental implications, does not reveal a discerniblefederalism philosophy in that branch of the government. If anything,1992–1993 further underscored the pulling and tuggingbetween the nation and the states that has characterized Americanfederalism for the past several years.     

The State of American Federalism, 1997 - 1998

Although it was a relatively quiet year for the courts and congressionalaction, 1997–1998 saw several developments that may significantlydefine federalism in the coming years. The 1998 federal budgetis projected to show a surplus, ending decades of deficit financinginWashington, D.C., but also raising questions about the budget'sfiscal impact on federalism and intergovernmental relations.Devolution took a back seat in Washington, D.C., as concernsabout managed care, education, and internet access led to proposalsfor increased federal involvement in state and local affairs.The states continued their implementation of welfare reformand launched other programs in health, environment.     

The State of American Federalism, 1994-1995

Federalism, as a concept and as a reality, received assistancefrom a variety of sources during 1994–1995. Opinion pollsrevealed a public strongly supportive of shifts in the balanceof power between federal and state governments. The new Republican-controlledCongress, bent on devolving authority to the states, busieditself with an ambitious legislative agenda. The DemocraticPresident pursued his principles of federalism and intergovernmentalrelations by supporting the unfunded mandates bill and by increasingthe use of the administrative waiver. The U.S. Supreme Courtbolstered federalism with its rulings in cases such as Lopez,a state challenge to the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.The new mood in Washington, D.C. was complemented by state leadersanxious to take on the challenges of a rebalanced federal system     

The State of American Federalism, 1993-1994

National political energies in 1993–1994 were focusedon major initiatives promised by the Clinton administrationduring the 1992 presidential campaign, especially health-carereform and crime. From the perspective of the states, federalgovernment action in these (and other) policy areas raised seriousquestions about preemption and mandates. The administration'sofficial pronouncements on federalism have suggested a strategyof decongestion and decentralization. Thus far, its actionshave fallen short of empowerment, taking instead the path ofregulatory waivers. Frustrated with the federal government,states and localities continued to engage in policy experimentation.     

The State of American Federalism, 1996-1997

Federalism enjoyed political and popular salience during theperiod 1996–1997 as the so-called "Devolution Revolution"began to be implemented and analyzed in the United States. Whilethere were a few examples of important Revolutionary efforts,the federal government continued to hold much of the power andsignificance it has achieved over the past sixty years. Evenin the area of welfare policy, where in 1996 there were historicreforms enacted to end the federal entitlement, the federalgovernment maintained a significant presence that made the ideaof devolution of welfare policy responsibility some what questionable.Nevertheless, states continued to lead in policy innovationin areas ranging from education to health, and the U.S. SupremeCourt continued to question the limits of federal power. Thepast year illustrated, once again, the complexity of our federalsystem and how difficult it is to reform federalism—particularlywhen it involves a shift in power and creates the perceptionof winners and losers.     

The State of American Federalism, 1995-1996

Federalism was a major political issue in 1995 and 1996 withpresidential candidates, congressional leaders, governors, andthe courts weighing in with proposals to shift responsibilityfrom Washington to states and localities. There was more talkthan action, but as the second session of the 104th Congresswound down in the late summer, a major proposal to block grantthe 61-year old Aid to Families with Dependent Children programwas enacted. This enactment allowed both Democrats and Republicansto take political credit, and gave major responsibilities tothe states to implement the new approach to a former entitlementprogram. Five themes characterized the year: (1) federalismwas once again a salient issue; (2) deficit reduction and devolutionwere bound together; (3) the U.S. Supreme Court continued toreexamine and possibly redefine the legal parameters of federalism;(4) state officials became more visible political actors inWashington, D. C.; and (5) states provided key policy and managementleadership.     

The State of American Federalism, 2005: Federalism Resurfaces in the Political Debate

After several years during which federalism was rarely a prominentor explicit issue in political debates, it was in several waysthrust into the public consciousness in 2005. It was not thatthe president or Congress ceased sacrificing state and localinterests to substantive policy goals, as shown by the costlyREAL ID Act, stringent new federal requirements in the TemporaryAid to Needy Families reauthorization, and congressional interventionin the Terri Schiavo case. However, Hurricane Katrina, and particularlythe delayed and ineffective intergovernmental response, generatedsubstantial debate about the appropriate federal role in disasterrelief. In addition, state and local governmental oppositionto the No Child Left Behind Act intensified and generated significantattention during the year, particularly as a result of a Utahstatute asserting the precedence of state over federal law anda Connecticut lawsuit against the act. Meanwhile, state governmentscontinued to address a number of policy problems that federalofficials were unable or unwilling to confront, especially regardingenvironmental, health-care, and labor issues. Finally, althoughthe Supreme Court in 2005 continued its recent (2003–2004)trend of pulling back somewhat from its late-1990s Congress-curbingdecisions, federalism issues figured quite prominently in thesenate confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Robertsand Justice Samuel Alito.     

The State of American Federalism, 2004: Is Federalism Still a Core Value?

Federalism as a political issue was conspicuously absent fromthe 2004 presidential contest. Unlike many previous campaigns,neither party's candidate made much mention of problems besettingstates and localities. The war against global terrorism andthe changing situation in Iraq shaped the election. Progresswas made on homeland security, but intergovernmental wranglingover federal grants continued unabated. Federal-state feudswere common in several policy areas, including education, environmentalprotection, and health care. State finances received a revenueboost as economic growth picked up, but rising costs for Medicaid,education, employee pensions, and prisons clouded states' financialforecasts. The U.S. Supreme Court decided several cases witha federalism dimension, and these decisions plus those of thepast several years suggest the Court has moved not so much togrant more power to the states but to prune back the power ofCongress. Much of what has happened during the first Bush administrationmust be seen against the larger background of changes in theAmerican political party system. Changes in party organizationand policy control, especially during the first Bush administration,reaffirm David Walker's assessment that over the past quartercentury American federalism has become more nationalized.     

An Intellectual Crisis in American Federalism: The Meaning of Garcia

In National League of Cities v. Usery (1976), the U.S. SupremeCourt found that the Tenth Amendment requires the existenceof a set of essential state powers that remains beyond the reachof congressional regulation or preemption. The Court reverseditself in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority(1985), holding that the Tenth Amendment provides the Courtno basis on which to limit the Congress in the exercise of itscommerce powers. We argue that, although contradictory, bothholdings can be inferred validly from the U.S. Constitution.This absurd result reveals profound inconsistencies in the constitutionaldesign of federalism, requiring a constitutional solution. Thearticle concludes with a discussion of a variety of constitutionalremedies, including constitutional amendments.     

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 Politics of Indian Gaming: Tribe/State Relations and American Federalism

Since the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988,gambling on reservations has become a multibillion dollar industry.The act, however, has led to jurisdictional conflicts betweentribes and states. These conflicts are redefining the positionand role of Indian tribes in American federalism. As the tribeshave gained autonomy, states have lost jurisdictional powerand control. The federal government has become the arbiter inthe disputes and, as such, has continued to maintain its positionof supremacy and power over both tribes and states.     

The State of U.S. Federalism, 1999-2000

Federalism has rarely been a key national campaign issue, andthe presidential campaign of 2000 was no exception. Althoughthe candidates talked of a key state-local issue—education—itwas in the context of the popular concern over the quality ofschools, rather than federalism issues of governmental responsibilityfor education. However, one aspect of federalism was evidentin the presidential campaign. The first president of the newmillennium may get a chance to name at least one U.S. SupremeCourt justice. Given the slim 5–4 majorities on most federalismcases, the appointment or appointments could be pivotal. Meanwhile,in the Congress and state Capitols, technology and globalizationissues forced a rethinking of traditional intergovernmentalfiscal and regulatory functions.     

The State of U.S. Federalism: 1998-1999

In 1998–1999, changing federalism in the United Statesmeant that states have greater discretion in some areas of socialpolicy while Congress has asserted greater influence over issuesof culture and crime. Despite the rhetoric about decisions beingbest made by states and localities, Congress continues to takeon new areas, such as health privacy. In the meantime, the U.S.Supreme Court's sustained focus on issues of federalism intensified,with states' rights continuing to receive emphasis, even thoughthe Court upheld federal power in selected cases and refusedto sanction state actions in others.     

American Federalism: From Johnson to Bush

Intergovernmental developments for more than twenty-five yearshave produced a nation-centered federalism—strongly sofrom 1964 to 1978, somewhat less so from 1969–1988, anda little more so during the past two years. The reasons forthis fundamental systemic transformation include: (1) the demiseof the earlier, 150-year old, confederative party system andthe rise of a new political system with weak federative parties,but other more powerful political actors; (2) an operationaland local representational renaissance of the states, but alsoa concomitant decline of state and local political influencein Washington; (3) a steadily centralizing Supreme Court, withonly a few pro-state decisions until 1989; and (4) a rapid risein national preemptions and of a "new social regulation" thatwas aimed at state and local governments as much as at the privatesector, even as the states were used to implement them. Theonly real constraint on national activism since 1982 has beenbudget-driven federalism, not planned reform efforts. The currentsystem then requires political, representational, judicial,and constitutional reforms if the centralizing, cooptive, andpermissive features of contemporary federalism are to be corrected.     

Issues of Federalism in Response to Terrorism

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, provoked, among other reactions, considerable commentary about the future of American federalism, particularly predictions of administrative centralization. To assess the potential impact of terrorism on U.S. intergovernmental relations and the ways the federal system should respond, members of the American Political Science Association's Section on Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations were surveyed in late 2001. Generally, these federalism scholars believe the September 11 terrorism will have little effect on intergovernmental relations or on the U.S. Supreme Court's state–friendly jurisprudence, and the surge in public trust and confidence in the federal government will be short–lived. The scholars tend to support a highly federalized response to terrorism, but with intergovernmental cooperation. Partisan differences among the scholars on policy options, however, mirror the party differences in Congress and the resurgence of "politics as usual" less than a year after September 11, 2001.     

The Reconstitution of American Federalism? The Rehnquist Court and Federal-State Relations, 1991-1997

This article surveys the U.S. Supreme Court justices' recentopinions on federal-state relations with a special focus theCourt's 1996 term. Contrary to some claims, the Rehnquist Courtis not reconstituting definitions of American federalism orthe function of the Court in defining federal-state relations.What has occurred is a revitalization of a long-standing interpretiveconflict about the deployment of government power within a legallyconstituted regime. Therefore, the debate in such cases as Printzv. United States, Camps New found/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison,City of Boerne v. Flores, and Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe isabout how the political principles contained in the nation'sfoundational legal and historical texts, such as The Federalistand other records of the American Founders, ought to be interpretedby the justices. However, despite the limited focus on interpretativetechnique, the justices' debate about federalism still has importantpolitical consequences that will affect future discussions aboutcongressional and state government power.