Chapter 9 Legislating Policy and Representing the People LEGISLATIVE BRANCH Make statutory laws Amend state constitutions Constituent service Bring government funding to district REPRESENTATION GEOGRAPHIC Heterogenous districts Homogenous districts NON GEOGRAPHIC ENTREPRENEURIAL RANDOM SELECTION LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT Equal Population Reynolds v Sims legislators represent people not trees or acres Equal number of people in the district BASE POPULATION RANGE 1 Redistricting State legislatures create districts for themselves and U S House Race and ethnicity Voting Rights Act 1965 Fracturing Packing or concentrating Partisan gerrymandering ONE PERSON ONE VOTE 1 OOO PEOPLE 1 OOO PEOPLE 1 OOO PEOPLE 500 CHILDREN 200 ADULTS NOT CITIZENS 200 ADULTS 100 ADULTS CITIZENS REGISTERED VOTERS CITIZENS NOT REGISTERED 600 CHILDREN 200 ADULTS NOT REGISTERED 200 ADULTS REGISTERED VOTERS FELONS 900 CONVICTED 40 ADULTS NOT REGISTERED 60 ADULTS REGISTERED VOTERS LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING 1000 REGISTERED VOTERS REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS 40 60 DISTRICTING CHOICES WINNERS 3 DEMS 2 REPS 1 2 3 4 5 WINNERS 5 DEMS 0 REPS 1 2 3 4 5 Acceptable and Unacceptable Racially Gerrymandered District Shapes and Compactness UNACCEPTABLE TEXAS 30TH ACCEPTABLE ILLINOIS 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1990s CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1990s DISTRICTING REQUIREMENTS CONTIGUITY POPULATION EQUALITY VOTING RIGHTS ACT IMPACT SHAPE PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING Percentage Turnover in State Legislatures Elections of 2006 2007 WA OR ID MT WY NV CA UT CO AZ NM AK HI ME VT NH MA CT RI NJ DE NY PA MD DC DC VA ND SD NE KS OK TX MN IA MO AR LA W I M I IN IL OH WV KY TN MS AL GA NC SC FL Less than 15 Percent 15 to 20 Percent 20 to 25 Percent 25 to 30 Percent More than 30 Percent COMPETITION UNOPPOSED APPOINTMENT INCUMBENT DEFEAT VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT Figure 9 2 How a Bill Becomes a Law Affecting Us Committee Reports Bill Assignment to Committee Committee Pigeon holes Holds Hearings and Marks up Bill Bill Drafted Bill Introduced First Reading Bill on Calendar Second Reading Debated Third Reading Vote on Bill If passed Signed Into Law by Governor If Amended Sent to Governor for Signature Conference Committee to Make Identical Bureaucracy Administers to Legislature s Satisfaction Judicial Review of Constitutionality We are Affected by the Law MAJOR VS MINOR BILLS MAJOR BILLS 56 MINOR BILLS 44 PROCESSING OF MAJOR BILLS INTRODUCED EARLIER MORE COMPANION BILLS MORE EVEN ACROSS COMMITTEES MORE AMENDMENTS MORE LIKELY TO DIE LATER FINAL ACTION AGENDA OF ACTIVE BILLS TEXAS LEGISLATURE 3000 1500 B I L L S O N A G E N D A 1 60 LEGISLATIVE DAY 140 SECRETS OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATIVE PROCESS NOT ALL BILLS ARE INTENDED TO PASS BILLS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER BILLS DO NOT RECEIVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION Texas Legislative Workload 1985 1995 2005 4957 4021 5484 Bills introduced Bills killed 2997 75 3869 78 4095 75 Passed legislature 1024 25 1088 22 1389 25 980 24 1064 21 1370 25 Became law Legislative days 140 140 140 A Model of Legislative Professionalization Larger Population Larger Population More Metropolitan More Metropolitan r 57 r 41 More Bills Introduced More Bills Introduced Longer Sessions Longer Sessions Greater Compensation Greater Compensation r 66 r 70 r 86 More Full Time More Full Time Legislators Legislators Figure 9 4A A Model of Legislative Professionalization 20 000 15 000 r 57 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 s n o i t c u d o r t n I l l i B 10 000 5 000 MA IL PA MN TN CT HI ME RI VT ND MS AR NM OR IA WV LA NV OK KY UT NH WY ID NE MD WA MO AZ IN WI AL SC CO 0 0 NC MI VA NJ GA OH 10 000 000 NY FL TX CA 20 000 000 Population 2007 30 000 000 40 000 000 Figure 9 4B A Model of Legislative Professionalization r 41 NY TX IL PA MA CA CT MD RI FL NJ TN MN NC HI OR MO WI AL IN GA LA VA MI WA UT OH SC DE NV CO AZ IA AR MS ME MT VT WY SD ID ND KY NE WV AK NM KS NH OK 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Metropolitan 2006 20 000 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 s n o i t c u d o r t n I l l i B 15 000 10 000 5 000 0 Figure 9 4C A Model of Legislative Professionalization r 66 NY 800 600 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 n o s s e S i f o h t g n e L 400 OH NJ WI MI RI PA CA MA IL TN MN TX 200 NH SC ME NC OR CT HI NE VT CO SD MO FL MD WA DE IN AZ KS OK MT NV KY AL ID WY WV UT LA VA AR IA NM MS 0 0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 Bill Introductions 2007 2008 Figure 9 4D A Model of Legislative Professionalization PA CA 80 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 s r o t a s g e L e m T l l l i i u F t n e c r e P 60 40 20 r 86 MD MA WI NY IL MI OH HI CT NJ WA DE CO OK AK AZ MS ME IA OR IN MT WV UT NM WY TN AL ND RI VA LAKY KS ID NE VT TX AR SC GAFL NV MN MO NH SD 0 0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 Legislative Compensation 2007 2008 Figure 9 4E A Model of Legislative Professionalization PA CA 80 r 86 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 s r o t a s g e L e m T l l i i l u F t n e c r e P 60 40 20 0 NY MD MA WI IL OH HI CT AK MS AZ ME NJ WA DE CO OK IA OR MT KY ND AL LA KS SD IN NE VT ID SC FL TN NC GA MN AR TX VA WV NV MO UT NH WY RI NM MI 0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 Legislative Compensation 2007 2008 MODELS OF RESPONSIVENESS REPRESENTATIONAL CONGRUENCE STATE LEGISLATORS 7800 legislators EDUCATION 75 have some college EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATORS MORE PRESTIGE PROFESSIONALS MANAGERS PROPRIETORS NOT ESTABLISHED WEALTH BUT UPWARDLY MOBILE MIDDLE CLASS FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULE PUBLIC CONTACT ATTORNEYS AGRICULTURE EDUCATION OVERREPRESENTED LABOR AND GOVERNMENT UNDERREPRESENTED MOBILITY OVER 75 BORN IN DISTRICT SEX MALE 80 to 90 PSYCHOLOGICAL MORE SELF CONFIDENT SELF SUFFICIENT EXTROVERTED DOMINANT TOLERANT LESS AUTHORITARIAN MORE FAVORABLY DISPOSED TOWARD MINORITIES Occupation 1976 22 3 2 7 15 8 9 7 Occupations of State Legislators in Percentages 2007 15 2 16 4 9 2 5 3 11 7 8 7 3 9 2 8 8 4 3 5 1 8 2 4 3 6 1 4 1 7 0 6 1 6 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Attorney Full Time Legislator Business Owner Agriculture …
View Full Document
Unlocking...