Most Texans Do Not Know Who Their Legislators Are. How Do You Seek to Solve That Problem?

NCSL Land Legislatures magazine, July/August 1999: The Good Legislature

Beyond the intuition that says "I know i when I see ane," how do y'all get virtually measuring the effectiveness of any given legislature?

Past Alan Rosenthal

What do nosotros want our land legislatures of the 21st century to be? Of course we want them to be constructive, to be good. But we too know that state legislatures will exist heavily influenced by forces over which they have little control-technology in particular. The challenge is to remain true to the primal purposes of representative democracy and the legislative system.

And then what is an effective, a skillful legislature in a time of dramatic modify?

It'due south a question, for the most function, that has gone unanswered, and even unattended. And the answer equally to what a skillful legislature is must come from legislators, legislative staff and concerned citizens.

For legislatures to exist adept, they must carry out the functions nosotros expect of them in our system of representative democracy. The principal ones are balancing power, representing constituencies and making laws. In considering whether legislatures are doing their job (and hence are good), we have to examine how well they are performing these 3 functions.

Balancing Power

Constitutionally, legislatures are separate, co-equal branches (indeed, the legislature is the first branch of government and the executive the 2d) that share governmental power. So it follows that legislatures must balance the power of governors and the executive branch. A good legislature, accordingly, has to be relatively independent of the governor. It must insist on participating in the initiation of policy and refuse to rubber-stamp executive proposals.

Independence was a watchword of the legislative reform motion of the 1960s and '70s. At that time it appeared that legislatures, except in well-nigh a dozen states, were dominated by governors. The evolution of legislative capacity and the legislative institution nourished a growing sense of legislative independence.

Legislative power may be requisite, but that does non mean that the greater the power imbalance in favor of the legislature, the better that legislature is. More power for the legislature is not necessarily improve once an appropriate residue is achieved. In other words, an imbalance in favor of the legislature is no better than an imbalance in favor of the governor. The legislature must truly be a co-equal branch of government.

Although we can measure the constitutional powers of governors and legislatures, their existent power hinges equally much on political factors and traditions every bit on constitutional and statutory ones. If we examine who initiates and enacts legislation and budgets, we should encounter in a general style how well the legislature is fulfilling its power balancing function.

Representing Constituencies

1 of the major roles of a legislature is representation-representing various constituencies, mainly people in each lawmaker'southward balloter commune, just besides organized groups and individuals elsewhere in the country. The question is, how well does the legislature perform its representational tasks?

First, the constitutional system and the legislature ought to provide for substantial political equality, that is, "one person, one vote." This standard, enforced by state and federal courts, is by and large met, although the political gerrymandering that accompanies redistricting is ofttimes used to benefit one party and incumbents in their re-election efforts.

2d, a variety of groups who previously lacked membership should be nowadays in the ranks of legislators today. Women, African Americans and Hispanics near notably demand opportunities to serve as well every bit to be represented. The trouble with such descriptive representation, equally it is called, is that it can exist applied to all types of groups (and not just those specified above). Information technology is not piece of cake to know just where to draw the line; nor is it easy to know only how close the percentages of minorities in the legislature should come to the percentages of minorities in the country.

Third, as office of its representational part, the legislature must provide service to constituencies and constituents. Constituent service is unremarkably the job of private members who appreciate the importance of doing a skillful job in this area if they hope to be re-elected. Service includes responding to constituents' requests for information, aid and example piece of work, as well every bit taking intendance of the district's interests with respect to land-aid formulas, local projects and public expenditures.

Fourth, the legislature has to ensure that citizens, also as groups, have access-access to members, to committees, and to the general process. The legislature must be open and provide information on agendas and proceedings. Legislatures' outreach efforts, including C-Bridge, help.

5th, the legislature besides has responsibility for civic instruction, peculiarly on representative democracy, the legislative institution and the legislative process. In order to provide borough education, legislatures have to tell the public it is their chore to represent diverse constituencies, various interests and differing values, and information technology is their office to appoint in conflict, build consensus and attain settlements. Citizens must take a sense of what representative democracy entails if they are to participate and advocate responsibly. Information technology is up to the legislature to provide them with that sense.

6th, the legislature has to be responsive, at least to some degree, to what citizens want, as well as to what the legislature determines they need. Assuming that responsiveness is part of the representational function, we have to effigy out how legislative enactments-at to the lowest degree on major issues-square with public demands and with public needs.

Making Law

Although representing others deals with the relations between the legislature and the public, lawmaking is internally focused. It relates to the processes by which laws (and policies) are fashioned.

Lawmaking includes several related legislative activities. The legislative part in formulating, reviewing and adopting a country upkeep has special significance. The upkeep is probably the most important pecker that a legislature passes. A legislature that performs poorly on the budget is probable to be an ineffective legislature overall.

The legislature's oversight office is likewise worth considering; that is, how and to what extent does the legislature monitor the application and effect of the laws it has enacted. Finally, nosotros should pay some attention to legislative foresight; that is, how and to what extent the legislature looks ahead in lodge to develop policies to meet the futurity needs of the state.

What should we await of the lawmaking process?

Get-go, it is important that individuals and groups have an opportunity to participate in the code enterprise as it takes place within the legislature. Diverse perspectives and positions on bug from both organized groups and unorganized individuals should be welcome. Lobbyists, accordingly, are an integral office of the process. (The importance of participation, however, is not meant to propose that direct republic, by means of the initiative and plebiscite, is a desirable feature of the lawmaking procedure.)

Second, the participation that counts most is that by legislators themselves. If a legislature is to perform its lawmaking function well, members must be able to play a role. Not every member, however, volition choose to be active on every issue; some are better equipped and better positioned than others. Internal democracy requires that within the senate and house power exist relatively dispersed.

Still, standing committees are key agencies and some legislators play larger legislative roles by virtue of their commission assignments (or considering of their interests or abilities). Not only practise chairmen practise leadership, just the rank and file of both the majority and minority parties too may have influence at the committee stage of the process. In a number of states the political party caucus is some other locus of member influence. There issues are hashed out and political party positions on legislation are developed. Internal democracy also requires that members accept basic parliamentary rights.

Third, although legislatures are essentially autonomous bodies, with members substantially equal to one some other, some members are "more equal than others." These are normally the elected and appointed leaders. Stiff leadership, particularly at the level of the presiding officer, is essential if the legislative process is to work well. This requires individuals with strategic, problem-solving and consensus-building abilities-people who exercise chief responsibleness for the functioning of the legislative process and the maintenance of the institution.

Fourth, the processes of legislative decision making may be more than or less partisan in nature. If the legislative parties are cohesive, the majority probably volition play the decisive function on important issues, such every bit the budget. The majority party caucus volition be a principal forum for deciding fundamental problems. But the minority must too be accorded parliamentary rights. If the bulk lacks cohesion, or has tended to dominate, as information technology does in essentially 1-party states, decisions on primal issues probably volition be made on a more bipartisan footing. Either organisation tin work, depending on the political civilization of the state.

A major danger is that if partisanship is as well heavily weighted in the process, minority members may observe themselves almost completely shut out, the only role remaining to them that of mischief maker. Unrestrained partisanship tin can damage civility and undermine the legislature as a working institution, further eroding the trust and confidence the public has in information technology. The conduct of the legislative parties, therefore, merits close scrutiny.

Fifth, deliberation is an of import characteristic of the legislative process. Information technology necessitates a give-and-have and an substitution of information and ideas. Deliberation provides the possibility that a number of legislators will exist influenced by the give-and-take. The deliberative process is non restricted to the debate (or lack thereof) that goes on at the second reading stage on the senate and house floor.

It is besides a vital element of committee activity and continues in the frequent and unstructured exchanges in members' offices, leadership conferences, at dejeuner, and in the corridors of the country house or legislative office building. Deliberation equally a standard is key to the very idea of a legislature.

Sixth, while deliberation involves the exchange of ideas, building consensus involves a more material commutation. Information technology depends on the willingness of opposing sides to sit down at a tabular array together and negotiate their differences. Generally, that ways dealing, trading and compromise, so that as many participants as possible buy into a settlement. The overwhelming bulk of laws enacted by a legislature are settled by some process of consensus edifice.

On relatively few problems are lines so firmly fatigued that negotiating is fruitless and battling it out is the but way to arrive at a decision. At that place is little dubiousness that one of the well-nigh of import tasks of the legislature is to build consensus; a legislature that is effective in this regard is likely to be an effective legislature.

Seventh, these processes not simply work to brand laws, they are also intended to address problems facing the state. If legislative processes are not related to state needs, they cannot entirely fulfill the expected lawmaking function. Ideally, we await legislatures to solve issues and improve conditions in the state. At the very least, legislatures have to address problems.

Facilitating Factors

2 sets of factors contribute substantially to the ability of a legislature to perform well. One can exist called capacity, the other institutionalism.

Capacity in the broadest sense is the resource, the wherewithal for the legislature to do its job. In the parlance of legislative reform, the amount of time in session and in the interim menstruation, the size of the professional person staff, the adequacy of facilities and technology add together up to legislative chapters. How much staff is needed? How should information technology exist organized? Is a total-time legislature better than a part-time i?

Questions like these deserve attention, although I doubt that the answers are the aforementioned in every place. Whether the legislature is more professional or more than amateur may not be critical either. Only what combination of resources or how much of each blazon is optimum or sufficient probably varies from country to state.

A vital function of a legislature's chapters is the quality of the legislators themselves. In considering quality, we have to deal with the issue of professional versus citizen legislators-that is, those who are relatively total-time careerists on the one mitt and those who are essentially function- and short-timers on the other. In just about every legislature, some of each type be.

But in some legislatures (for instance, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania) professionals predominate, while in others (for case, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming) citizens predominate. It is non possible to say that ane type of member is more than desirable than some other for a legislature, or but what mix works all-time.

Quality also applies to the personal characteristics of legislators, and especially of legislative leaders. The reputations of legislatures in California (during the late 1960s and early on 1970s) and Florida and Minnesota (during the 1970s and 1980s) were based in large function on the substantial number of able, intelligent, energetic, defended and politically skillful individuals who served at the time. These members fabricated a marked deviation in the performance of the legislature. Legislators with such characteristics clearly contribute to legislative performance everywhere.

The integrity, or the ethics, of the legislature is an integral part of capacity. Although we do non define legislative goodness strictly in terms of the upstanding behavior of members, the ideals of the capitol community and the type and enforcement of ethics laws are among the factors that touch on how legislators function. Legislatures characterized by integrity are likely to practise ameliorate than those where the ethical conduct of members is over the line or besides nearly the line. Legislative integrity in deed and in spirit matters non only to the public, but besides to the overall ability of the legislature to fulfill its representational responsibilities.

Institutionalism is related to a combination of factors that pertain to a legislator'south identification with the senate or the business firm and with the legislature as a political establishment. 3 of the most important ones are business organization, community and continuity.

Concern has to do with a sense of, identification with, or dedication to the legislature, all of which are probable to promote the operation of balancing power and making police. For a legislature to be good, it needs members who care about its well-being and who appoint in institution-building activities (or at least exercise not engage in activities that are institutionally harmful or subversive). Members who are institutionally inclined will defend the legislature against criticism they believe unjust and volition discourage colleagues from running against the institution in order to win office.

Customs encompasses the culture and norms of the legislature. It requires some level of understanding on the demand for civility and some manifestation of collegiality. Breezy socializing among legislators helps to build community. In near places such interaction has been in decline in contempo years; nevertheless, it remains an element of institutionalism, and ane that seems to facilitate the performance of legislative functions.

Continuity is probably equally important to institutionalism as anything else. Some continuity of membership and staff not just provides for greater knowledge and skill on the parts of lawmakers, but information technology promotes institutional values. It takes a while for virtually new members to identify with and develop business for the legislature as an institution that claim their support.

Continuity does not require extremely low turnover of membership, only but that some members serve for a decent menstruum of time. By requiring that everyone turn over with relatively brief regularity and past discouraging legislators from identifying with an establishment they are passing through, term limits run counter to institutional continuity. The 18 states that currently limit terms are at a disadvantage when it comes to having a good legislature.

Assessing Legislatures

This model of the good legislature is based on 3 principal legislative functions-balancing power, representing constituencies and lawmaking. The factors that facilitate functioning of these functions are capacity and institutionalism.

Some might suggest a dissimilar model, just on the basis of what I have read and observed of legislatures, I call back this is equally good as any place to first thinking about what makes a legislature good. Information technology volition non exist like shooting fish in a barrel to bring to life the categories discussed here; it is virtually impossible to measure the several dimensions of the adept legislature and to rank the legislatures of the 50 states on goodness. (What is near measurable is probably to the lowest degree significant and what is probably most significant is least measurable.) Uprooting a legislature from the political culture of its state cannot be washed. What serves well in Vermont might non serve well in California, and vice versa; and what serves well in Iowa might not serve well in Florida, and vice versa. Comparing legislatures across states is tricky business; giving legislatures numerical scores is impossible concern.

But even if measurement is beyond our ability, it is about time that nosotros figure out roughly what a good legislature is and roughly how well our own legislature is measuring upward.

Alan Rosenthal is a professor of political science at the Eagleton Establish of Politics at Rutgers.

How Good is Your Legislature?

Alan Rosenthal comments that most of his criteria for a good legislature cannot exist easily measured, and they are certainly subjective. Only that shouldn't stop you from trying to evaluate how good your legislature is. Give your legislature a form on each of the following questions.

Balancing Ability

1. Does your legislature finer share ability with the governor?

two. Does your legislature initiate and enact its own legislation and make independent decisions near the state budget?

Representing Constituents

3. Are the legislative districts within your chamber of nearly equal population?

4. Are the numbers of women, African Americans and Hispanics in your legislature reasonably reflective of the population of your country?

v. Do the members of your legislature provide effective constituent service including responses to requests for data, casework, local projects and public expenditures?

6. Practise citizens and groups in your state take set up access to information on agendas and proceedings of the legislature?

seven. Does your legislature provide effective civic education for the public (of all age levels) about representative democracy, the legislative establishment and the lawmaking process?

8. Is your legislature responsive to public demands and needs?

Making Law

ix. Does your legislature let constructive participation and input from citizens and organized groups in code decisions?

x. Is there a reasonable level of internal democracy within your bedchamber? Is power relatively dispersed and are the parliamentary rights of private members protected and respected?

11. Do you have effective legislative leaders who take strategic, trouble-solving and consensus-building abilities?

12. Is the degree of partisanship in your legislature reasonable? Does the majority party have plenty clout to get things done? Are the rights of the minority party protected? Are in that location reasonable restraints on partisanship so that civility is maintained?

thirteen. Is your legislature deliberative? Does it allow for give and have and the open commutation of ideas at all stages of the formal and informal legislative process?

14. Does your legislature engage in consensus building? Are opposing sides willing to negotiate differences and observe compromises to difficult bug?

15. Does your legislature address and solve the most important problems in your country?

Facilitating Factors

sixteen. Does your legislature have the resources (staff, time, facilities, technology) to do its job effectively?

17. Does your legislature have integrity? Do the members of the legislature and the Capitol community in general acquit in ethical means?

18. Do the members of your legislature intendance about and protect the well-being of the institution?

19. Is there a sense of customs within your legislature? Is at that place civility and collegiality?

20. Is at that place adequate continuity in the membership of your legislature to promote institutional values and pass on knowledge and skills?

-Karl T. Kurtz, NCSL

Most Texans Do Not Know Who Their Legislators Are. How Do You Seek to Solve That Problem?

Source: https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/the-good-legislature.aspx

Share this post