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.     

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.     

Federalism and U.S. Water Policy: Lessons for the Twenty-First Century

This article traces five historical streams of water policyin the United States, revealing the strain and stresses of intergovernmentalrelations pertaining to water resource management. It findsthat water policy is increasingly characterized by pragmaticfederalism emphasizing collaborative partnerships, adaptablemanagement strategies, and problem and process orientation.The evolving nature of federal-state relations, characterizedby expanding federal authorities and increased state capacity,coupled with a rise of local watershed groups and greater ecologicalconcern, calls for improved coordination. Yet challenges resultingfrom policy fragmentation and ecosystem complexity remain. Continuedcalls for greater integration will likely be heard as federal-staterelations continue to evolve.     

Strengthening the Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Fate of Recent Federalism Legislation in the U.S. Congress

Although a number of measures have been proposed during thepast decade to require the U. S. Congress to take more accountof state and local interests, whether in regard to mandates,preemptions, regulations, or grants-in-aid, the only major successhas been passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995(UMRA). This article examines the fate of the dozen bills thatprogressed far enough to be the subject of a committee hearingor receive a vote in the House or Senate. Only a few of thesemeasures, most of them rather modest in scope, were enacted,while the most significant measures were rejected, largely becausestate and local governments have experienced a number of difficultiesin reproducing the conditions that were present for the passageof UMRA. Health, labor, and environmental groups were able toblock a number of these bills. Business groups occasionallyparted company with state and local governments and worked todefeat federalism legislation. Finally, state and local governmentgroups have not always been united in support of these measures.     

Dimensions of Federalism In U.S. Senate Voting, 1981-1982

The concept of federalism is important in political science;yet it has proven difficult to clarify and to use in empiricalanalyses of American political institutions. This analysis demonstratesthat the congressional federalism scores reported in Publiusare not unidimensional and that a better measure of federalismcan result in improved explanatory power of empirical analysisof the determinants of congressional attitudes toward federalism.A procedure for constructing a better measure of federalismis suggested.     

Federalism Outcomes and Ideological Preferences: The U.S. Supreme Court and Preemption Cases

The record of the U.S. Supreme Court in decisions affectingfederal-state relations has been one of inconsistency betweenstates' rights and national supremacy. This inconsistency hasperplexed both legal and political science scholars who havehad great difficulty placing decision-making regarding federalismoutcomes by the Court in any sort of theoretical context. Contraryto much conventional wisdom, ideological preferences do notautomatically translate into federalism outcomes. We extendmodels of judicial decision-making in political environmentsby including state policy. State policy outcomes may be eithermore liberal or more conservative than the policy would be underfederal control. Thus, the ideological preferences of the justicesmay contradict their preferences toward nationalism or statesrights. Testing the model using 94 preemption cases, we findthat individual justices and most Courts are willing to sacrificetheir federalism values in the pursuit of some other policygoal. This finding has implications for both the federalismliterature and strategic models of Court behavior, as well asfor cases the Court is currently reviewing.     

Canadian Federalism: The Entanglement of Meech Lake and the Free Trade Agreement

In retrospect, 1988 may turn out to be a pivotal year in theevolution of Canadian federalism. The November general electionwas dominated by an intense national debate over the proposedFree Trade Agreement with the United States. Although the FreeTrade Agreement was seen to have important ramifications forCanadian federalism, coherent discussion of those ramificationsbecame blurred in the face of a much broader and emotionallypartisan debate. Concerns about the nature of Canadian federalismwere instead absorbed by, and in part displaced by, an emergingnational debate on the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord. TheAccord had been reached by the eleven first ministers in 1987,but by the end of 1988 it had yet to receive legislative ratificationin Manitoba and New Brunswick. In the aftermath of the 1988election, debates over free trade and the Accord have becomeprogressively entangled. While this entanglement did not alterthe outcome of the free trade debate, it has had important consequencesfor the Meech Lake Accord, and thus for the future of Canadianfederalism.     

Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States

Studies of policy diffusion often focus on the horizontal spread of enactments from one state to another, paying little or no attention to the effects of local laws on state-level adoptions. For example, scholars have not tested whether local policy adoptions make state action more likely (through a snowball effect) or less likely (through a pressure valve effect). This study conducts the first comprehensive analysis of vertical policy diffusion from city governments to state governments, while simultaneously examining the influence of state-to-state and national-to-state diffusion. Focusing on three different types of antismoking laws, we find evidence that policies do bubble up from city governments to state governments. State politics are crucial to this relationship, however, as local-to-state diffusion is contingent on the level of legislative professionalism and the strength of health advocates in the state.     

State Merit Amicus Participation and Federalism Outcomes in the U.S. Supreme Court

Research suggests that merit amicus curiae participation correlateswith Supreme Court decision making and that states make frequentand effective use of this tool. To date, however, no study hasadequately examined the relationship between state amicus participationand the federalism values reflected in the Court's decisions.This article dev"Lelops and finds evidence for the assertionthat, when they cooperate in the amicus process, state participationis associated with an increase in the likelihood of rulingsfavoring state rather than national government power.     

Wealth-Transfer Taxes in U.S. Fiscal Federalism: A Levy Still in Need of Reform

Wealth-transfer taxes are federal and state levies on the valueof estates, inheritances, and gifts. Because the federal governmentallows a limited tax credit, repeal of the federal tax has implicationsfor state governments. This article discusses the economic justificationof taxing wealth transfers and provides data on the importanceof the tax from 1977 to 1997. We measure the degree of variationin the use of the tax among the states and pinpoint those statesfor which death taxation is most important. Wealth-transfertaxation needs reform but, repeal of the federal tax is inappropriate.Instead, the state levies should be abandoned. We conclude byproposing to repeal the state taxes and reduce the federal taxby an amount equivalent to the value of the federal tax-credit.The resulting revenues, however, would not to be garnered bythe federal government but returned as revenue-sharing fundsto the resident state of the decedent.     

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."     

Origin, Operation, and Significance: The Federalism of William H. Riker

William Riker transformed the study of federalism by advancingboth a methodological approach and numerous substantive propositions.Methodologically, he introduced students of federalism to thescientific approach of positive political science, illustratingthe development of "testable and tested generalizations." Substantively,he explained the origins of federal systems as a bargain amongpolitical leaders with expansionist and militaristic concerns.He argued that the United States was a politically centralizedfederal system from its founding. He linked the degree of centralizationin federal systems to the degree of centralization among theirpolitical parties. Despite all his work, though, Riker ultimatelydismissed federalism as a minor institution having little impacton policy outcomes.     

Federalism and Decentralization: Ownership Rights and the Superiority of Federalism

The benefits and costs usually ascribed to federalism are benefitsand costs of decentralization; they are, therefore, presentin unitary states that are in fact all decentralized. The benefitsand costs specific to federalism pertain to ownership rightsin constitutional powers. Federalism is superior to confederalismand unitarianism because the ownership rights peculiar to thatsystem of government are such that they ensure the perduranceof competition when one or more competitors are unsuccessful.They do so because under federalism, powers cannot be repossessedunilaterally. Ownership rights have to be enforced; as a consequence,there are also costs that are specific to federalism.     

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 U.S. Senate and Federalism Policy in the 96th and 97th Congresses

Although the Congress of the United States has a major influenceon American federalism, there has been little systematic attentiongiven to what factors influence congressional voting on federalismissues. This article is an initial effort to address this question.Drawing on previous literature which has attempted to explainvoting decisions of congressmen, senators' "federalism" votingin the 96th and 97th Congresses is considered. The analysisindicates that ideology and party, especially the former, arethe major influences on senators' votes. Moreover, the variablesfound to be most important to senators' federalism votes appearsomewhat distinct from those that influence other domestic policies.Some suggestions for further research are also offered.     

Daniel J. Elazar: Comparative Federalism and Post-Statism

Daniel J. Elazar made an enormous contribution to the comparativestudy of federalism both by his encouragement of internationalcollaboration among scholars and by the prolific number of hewrote or edited and articles he produced which analyzed theconceptual foundations for federalism internationally. An importantcontribution was the distinction he drew between as a broadgeneric term and the variety of its specific forms such as federations,confederations, federacies. A dominant theme in his recent workwas the notion that in the contemporary world, we seeing a paradigmshift from a world of nation-states to a world of reduced statesovereignty and constitutionalized linkages of a federal orconfederal character.     

Constitutional Reform and Continental Free Trade: A Review of Issues in Canadian Federalism in 1987

Two issues dominated the Canadian federal provincial agendain 1987: constitutional reform and trade negotiations with theUnited States. On the constitutional side, a unanimous agreement—knownas the Meech Lake Accord—was reached among First Ministers(Prime Minister and provincial premiers). On the economic side,Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan signeda comprehensive, bilateral, free trade agreement. However, neitheragreement will take effect until endorsed or implemented bythe relevant legislatures, and one cannot take for granted thatlegislative approval will be forthcoming in either case. Whateverthe outcome, the attempt to grapple with these matters willhave a lasting impact on Canadian federalism. Both agreementsare controversial in certain regions, and while implementationwould initiate a string of systemic changes, rejection wouldengender new regional animosities. Thus, each of the two issues,taken separately, will affect institutional arrangements andterritorial (regional) relationships within Canada. The interplaybetween the two initiatives will also be significant.     

Towards an Integrated Model of the U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Decision Making

Disputes involving the boundaries of state versus federal powermake up a substantial portion of the U.S. Supreme Court's docketand have undergone extensive analysis. Yet, the conventionalwisdom regarding the justices’ choices in these casesis that they are highly inconsistent. I argue that this is primarilya function of the failure of scholars to develop a comprehensivemodel of the justices’ federalism decision making. Toremedy this, I introduce an integrated model of the individualjustices’ choices in these cases, which is then subjectedto empirical testing in the Rehnquist Court era (1986–2004).I explore a host of determinants of the justices’ decisionmaking, including attitudinal, institutional, legal, and personalattributes, as well as the role of organized interests in theCourt. The findings reveal that the choices justices make inthese cases are not as discordant as most commentators suggest.Rather, they are relatively predictable through the applicationof an integrated model of judicial choice.     

George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism

George W. Bush's presidency presents two major puzzles. TheRepublican Party has traditionally stood for "limited government,"but Bush's principal legacy for federalism is centralizationof power in the federal government and the executive branch.Most modern presidents have neglected their partisan duties,but Bush has been a uniquely vigorous party leader. Here, weshow that Bush's puzzling lack of attention to federalism issuesis in large part the result of his efforts to strengthen theRepublican Party to cope with the political and electoral challengescharacteristic of the contemporary political context. We explainwhy the Bush administration's strategy for redressing the Republicanparty's shortcomings has presupposed the deprecation of federalism,and consider the implications of our argument for the developmentof federal arrangements.