Federalism and
Public Policy
“State”-side …
• State constitutions are more detailed and sometimes confer
more rights than the federal one
– Initiative, referendum, recall
• “Nullification”: states declares null and void federal law they
believe violates the Constitution
– Civil War - states cannot nullify federal law
– “Obamacare” referendums
• Dual federalism: both national and state governments are
supreme in their own spheres
– “State Sovereignty” - State can do what is not prohibited by
the Constitution or preempted by federal policy
• States as laboratories of democracy
– Voting at 18; women’s suffrage; prohibition
Trickle-down Politics
• Commerce Power
– Civil Rights Legislation
– Federal Aid
• Pre-emption (restraints and
mandates)
– Nutrition labeling
– No Child Left Behind
– Due process
Access to Government
• Bureaucracy
– Links local and national
goals/interests
– Implement policy
– Provide jobs
• State Culture
– “Red and Blue” States
– Single member districts
Grants-in-aid
Grants show how political realities modify legal authority.
• Grants dramatically increased in scope in twentieth
century.
• Prevailing constitutional interpretation until late 1930s:
– federal government can’t spend money for purposes not
authorized by Constitution
– grants a way around this.
Grants were attractive to state officials for various reasons:
• Federal budget surpluses & tax increased revenues
• Federal control of money supply
• Appeared as “free” money for state officials, who did not
have to be responsible for federal taxation.
Cooperative federalism
A model of federalism in which the states and national government
cooperate in solving complex common problems, emphasizes an
expanded role for the national government.
•The New Deal and Cooperative Federalism.
– Response to the Great Depression, implemented social-welfare programs
designed to alleviate the bad economic times.
– Dual federalism, in contrast, had held that programs such as relief for the
poor were entirely outside of the federal role.
• Supreme Court struck down dozens of New Deal programs as unconstitutional
• After “Court Packing Plan” Court ceased to interfere with attempts to legislate
broadly under the commerce clause.
– Why “Cooperative Federalism”? -- programs typically funded by the federal
government, but administered by states and local governments, thus
creating a cooperative framework for federalist relations.
Cooperative federalism
• Methods of Implementing Cooperative Federalism.
– Categorical Grants: grants to states or local governments
that are for specific programs or projects.
– Block Grants: federal programs that provide funds to state
and local governments for broad functional areas
– Federal Mandates: requirement in federal legislation that
forces states and municipalities to comply with certain
rules
Meeting national needs
1960s shift in grants-in-aid
• From what states demanded . . . To what federal officials
considered important as national needs
– Federal grants to state and local governments increased.
– Purpose of federal funds changed.
The intergovernmental lobby
• Hundreds of state and local officials lobby in Washington
–
–
–
–
U.S. Conference of Mayors
National Governors Association
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities
• Purpose: to get more federal money with fewer strings
Where the Money Goes
12
The Changing Purpose of Federal Grants to State
and Local Governments
Categorical vs. Block grants
Categorical grants
•Specific purposes defined by federal law
•Often require local matching funds.
Block grants (AKA special revenue sharing or broad-based aid)
•General purposes with few restrictions
•States preferred block to categorical grants; more autonomy.
Neither achieved goal of giving states more spending freedom
– Did not grow as fast as categorical grants
– Number of strings actually increased
General Revenue Sharing: provided money to states with no
strings attached; ended in 1986
Categorical vs. Block grants
Block grants grew more slowly than categorical grants
due to differences between political coalitions that
supported each.
• Federal officials, liberal interest groups, organized labor tend
to distrust state government
• Categorical grants give the national government more power.
• Categorical grants are matters of life or death for various state
agencies.
• Supervising committees in Congress favored growth of
categorical grants.
The Shift
Toward
Central
Government
Spending
16
Federal controls on state gov’t activities
Conditions of aid: tell state governments what they must do if they wish to
receive grant money
•traditional control -- Attached to grants; range from specific to general
•Divergent views of states and federal government on costs and benefits of these
conditions
– each side attempts to pass on most of the cost to the other sides
Mandates: tell state governments what they must do
– federal rules that states or localities must obey; generally have little or nothing to
do with federal aid
– EX: Civil rights & Environmental protection
•May or may not be funded
– Mandates more likely in policy areas that receive less federal funding
– Waivers exempt some parties from federal mandates.
•may also make it difficult for state/local governments to:
– raise revenues & borrow funds
– privatize public functions
– may expose them to financial liability.
•Controversial mandates may result from court decisions
– state prisons, school desegregation, legalized abortion
The “New Federalism”
• Beginning with President Nixon, the Republican Party
championed devolution
– the transfer of powers from the national government to state or
local government
– Most Americans favor devolution, but not if that means cuts in
government programs that benefit most citizens
• Federalism 1990s-2000s: brief break from traditional
positions.
– Bill Clinton transferred significant control over welfare programs
to the states
– George W. Bush increased federal control over education
• Tea Party Conservatism and Election 2012
– OBAMA: stimulus, educ. Funding, Obamacare (ACA)
– ROMNEY: Block Grant Medicaid, devolution
– STATES: Personhood, Pot laws, Anti-ACA referendums