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, 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, 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, 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 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.     

The State of American Federalism, 2001-2002: Resilience in Response to Crisis

The past year has been one of repeated shocks to governmentand the larger society. Terrorist attacks in New York City andWashington, D. C., the burst of the dot.com bubble in the stockmarket, a wave of corporate scandals, and a slowdown in theeconomy posed severe problems for officials of all governmentsin the federal system. The combined effects of the war on terrorismand the economic turmoil forced federal policymakers to createnew agencies and to enact new policies. State and local governmentsalso responded to the multiple shocks with a variety of initiatives,often independent of Washington. Instead of a move toward centralizationthat might have been predicted as a consequence of the seriousshocks, all elements of the American federal system demonstrateda capacity and energy to marshal resources in a time of urgency.     

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.     

State Actions Affecting Cities and Counties, 1990–1993: De Facto Federalism

States experienced considrable fiscal stress during the first four years of the 1990s. This has led to changes in five policy areas: (1) state financial aid; (2) local revenue diversification; (3) "sorting out" of responsibilities between the state and local governments; (4) tax and spending limitations; (5) and mandate relief. Some of the most significant changes occurred in California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin.     

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 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.     

American Federalism as American Exceptionalism

Americans paradoxically claim uniqueness for their politicalsystem, yet promote it as a model for others. This is especiallytrue of federalism, the clearest example of American exceptionalism.At its inception, American federalism was produced in an environmentclosely approximating what scholars have since distilled asoptimal conditions for fostering such a system. In other contexts,federalism has not flourished, because those preconditions areseldom approximated. Remarkably, American federalism has adjustedto meet drastically changed social, geographic, and politicalconditions, and the case for its continued adaptiveness andappropriateness remains strong. Although enclaved state differencesin economics and religion are no longer a reality, these andother differences are widespread especially on a regional basis.Even on a statewide basis, cultural mixes keep the country heterogeneous.The U.S. Constitution has been reinterpreted to permit rathermore nationalized control in accordance with this process ofeliminating differences. Indeed, this is to the point wherefederalism could become legally problematic, explaining theRehnquist court's recent decisions.     

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.     

The Status of State Governments in Nigeria's Federalism

Nigerian states have almost completely lost their autonomy.The Babangida years and, in particular, 1991–1992, havewitnessed unprecedented reductions in states' powers. The entrenchmentof local government autonomy and the loss of some state powersto local authorities, the reduction of states' financial powersand their share of the Federation Account, as well as the decreeof a highly centralized two-party system, all have, within theframework of structural economic adjustment and the transitionto civil rule (expected to be completed in January 1993), worsenedthe position of the state governments. However, with the establishmentof civilian governance in the states and the return of constitutionalgovernment after January 1993, the state governments may reasserttheir autonomy.     

State Health Policies, Federalism, and the Elderly

This article examines recent state health policy efforts forthe elderly and their implications for future federal and stateroles. States have been particularly active in creating programsto address the needs of the chronically ill and in seeking tomodify regulatory policies and promote private sector efforts.Those efforts have involved relatively autonomous state programsas well as programs developed within the intergovernmental system.To meet the health policy needs of an increasing elderly population,future federal policies must recognize potentials for significantstate contributions and seek to minimize actions that reducepolicy innovation, while continuing to address the problem oflimited responses in low-performance states.